# "Mary Worship?"



## Starman3000m

Here is an article by Mary Ann Collins, a former nun.  Asking any of our Catholic participants to please take the time, if you can, to read through it and refute any of the author's claims.  Very interested to know your thoughts.  If the author is wrong about any of the RCC doctrines/teachings, please specify and clarify with your beliefs. The article is not too long and the link to the entire info is cited below.

Thank you


> *Mary Worship? *
> 
> by Mary Ann Collins (A Former Catholic Nun)
> July 2001
> INTRODUCTION
> 
> Jesus said that the truth will set us free.  (John 8:32)  However, He did not say that the truth would necessarily be easy to accept.  It was painful for me to learn the information that I am about to share with you, but it was also liberating and it led to a closer relationship with God.
> 
> As a faithful Catholic, and later as a nun, I practiced Mary worship for many years without realizing it.  The prayers and practices were so familiar.  They were taught to me by good people, sincere people that I trusted.  I prayed rosaries and wore a scapular and engaged in other “devotions” which I honestly thought were good and pleasing to God. Because of my lack of knowledge of the Bible and of Church history, I honestly had no idea that I was actually worshipping Mary.
> 
> If modern Catholic teachings and doctrines about Mary are true, then they will not be contrary to Scripture, the writings of the Early Fathers, or the decrees of past popes.  For a devout Catholic to question these issues and put them to the test can be painful.  It certainly was for me.  However, it would be far more painful to have God correct us when we face Him on Judgment Day.
> 
> LETTING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SPEAK FOR ITSELF
> 
> I believe in letting people speak for themselves.  Therefore my primary sources about Catholic doctrines and history come from the Catholic Church.
> 
> First and foremost is the official Catechism of the Catholic Church which was written for the purpose of summarizing the essential and basic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.  It was approved by Pope John Paul II in 1992 and the English translation was released in 1994.  The latest English edition was printed in 2000.  Most of my other sources are either practicing Catholics or else former Catholics whose approach is loving and respectful and who have thoroughly documented their work.
> 
> When I cite the Catechism I will give paragraph numbers rather than page numbers.  I will summarize what it says.  If you want to see the paragraphs for yourself, there are two web sites with search engines for the Catechism.  (Their addresses are given in the Notes.)  You can search by topic or by paragraph number.  [1]
> 
> Scripture quotations are from the King James Version of the Holy Bible.
> 
> If you really want to understand Catholic teaching in the light of Scripture and the history of the Catholic church, then I strongly recommend reading the following two books.  The authors are former Catholics who love and respect Catholics.  They are gentle and respectful in their approach.  (See the Bibliography for information about these books.)
> Complete Info at: MARY WORSHIP by Mary Ann Collins (A Former Catholic Nun)


----------



## Nonno

*Fake nun?*

Mary Ann Collins


----------



## libby

Nonno said:


> Mary Ann Collins


----------



## Starman3000m

Nonno said:


> Mary Ann Collins



FYI: Muslims claim that Walid Shoebat is a "fake" yet he is "right on" regarding what the real truth is behind Fundament Islam.

I expected this of those who want to discredit Mary Ann Collins, and was aware of the posts against her.

My question to Catholic participants is to see if they are able to refute her claims about "Mary Worship" and the Cathecism teachings of Mary in contrast to the New Testament teachings of the Holy Bible.

Sorry, Nonno, but unless you are Catholic, I'd really like to have the honest view points about the claims the author is making about "Mary Worship" since we do know for a fact that Mary is called the "Queen over all things" by the RCC:



> *I. MARY'S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH *
> 966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."506 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
> 
> source:
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm



So, rather than attempt to discredit Ms. Collins as an individual, please show where she is wrong about the RCC teachings in regard to Mary Worship.
Thanks


----------



## Nonno

In my opinion, Starman3000m is one the worst kinds of religious fanatic, akin to the Phelps family of nutjobs, and is a warped pseudo Christian who haunts this forum for his own personal nasty, racist crusades against all other religious organizations that are different from his own homemade cult. Like I said before, he should get off his fat scurvy ass, head out to some third world country, find some gullible ignoramuses and start up his own con there. If he stays here here much longer he'll probably turn into another Jim Jones or Timothy McVeigh.


----------



## libby

Speaking for myself, I've tried to explain how we view Mary, but you won't have it.  You insist it is worship that is due to God alone.  You insist on telling me what I believe and what my church teaches.  You insist on going to "former Catholics" for your info.  Try going to "former Bible Christians" who have converted to the RCC.  You'll know they are not Catholic because of indoctrination, but because they finally decided to listen instead of talk.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Speaking for myself, I've tried to explain how we view Mary, but you won't have it.  You insist it is worship that is due to God alone.  You insist on telling me what I believe and what my church teaches.  You insist on going to "former Catholics" for your info.  Try going to "former Bible Christians" who have converted to the RCC.  You'll know they are not Catholic because of indoctrination, but because they finally decided to listen instead of talk.



Waiting for any refutation. Can anyone show where the author is wrong?


----------



## Starman3000m

Nonno said:


> In my opinion, Starman3000m is one the worst kinds of religious fanatic, akin to the Phelps family of nutjobs, and is a warped pseudo Christian who haunts this forum for his own personal nasty, racist crusades against all other religious organizations that are different from his own homemade cult. Like I said before, he should get off his fat scurvy ass, head out to some third world country, find some gullible ignoramuses and start up his own con there. If he stays here here much longer he'll probably turn into another Jim Jones or Timothy McVeigh.



*There Is Only One Truth.*
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32)

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

I agree with Jesus.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Waiting for any refutation. Can anyone show where the author is wrong?



Why would I try...AGAIN???


----------



## onel0126

Starman3000m said:


> Waiting for any refutation. Can anyone show where the author is wrong?



Tomorrow, when I'm feeling more charitable.


----------



## PsyOps

Nonno said:


> In my opinion, Starman3000m is one the worst kinds of religious fanatic, akin to the Phelps family of nutjobs, and is a warped pseudo Christian who haunts this forum for his own personal nasty, racist crusades against all other religious organizations that are different from his own homemade cult. Like I said before, he should get off his fat scurvy ass, head out to some third world country, find some gullible ignoramuses and start up his own con there. If he stays here here much longer he'll probably turn into another Jim Jones or Timothy McVeigh.



I guess you're entitled to YOUR opinion.


----------



## Starman3000m

PsyOps said:


> I guess you're entitled to YOUR opinion.



That's OK; nonno's comments are actually quite tame - I have been called worse things. LOL


----------



## ItalianScallion

Nonno said:


> In my opinion, Starman3000m is one the worst kinds of religious fanatic, akin to the Phelps family of nutjobs, and is a warped pseudo Christian who haunts this forum for his own personal nasty, racist crusades against all other religious organizations that are different from his own homemade cult. Like I said before, he should get off his fat scurvy ass, head out to some third world country, find some gullible ignoramuses and start up his own con there. If he stays here here much longer he'll probably turn into another Jim Jones or Timothy McVeigh.


In my opinion, Nonno is one the worst kinds of left wing fanatic, akin to the Chris Matthews family of nutjobs, and is a warped pseudo liberal who haunts this forum for his own personal nasty, racist crusades against all other right wing organizations that are different from his own homemade cult. Like I said before, he should get off his SENILE OLD scurvy ass, head out to some third world country, find some gullible ignoramuses and start up his own con there. If he stays here much longer he'll probably turn into another Jimmy Carter or John Kerry.   

You may now return your head to it's original position...





UN     FREAKIN'     BELIEVABLE!!!!


----------



## thatguy

Nonno said:


> In my opinion, Starman3000m is one the worst kinds of religious fanatic, akin to the Phelps family of nutjobs, and is a warped pseudo Christian who haunts this forum for his own personal nasty, racist crusades against all other religious organizations that are different from his own homemade cult. Like I said before, he should get off his fat scurvy ass, head out to some third world country, find some gullible ignoramuses and start up his own con there. If he stays here here much longer he'll probably turn into another Jim Jones or Timothy McVeigh.



that is pretty much right on, the only misrepresentation is that starman didn't create his pseudo christian religion. He has been sold an "interpretation" of the bible. sad really, that he and his use their religion as the basis for their bigotry.


----------



## ItalianScallion

thatguy said:


> that is pretty much right on, the only misrepresentation is that starman didn't create his pseudo christian religion. He has been sold an "interpretation" of the bible. sad really, that he and his use their religion as the basis for their bigotry.


What's sad is your "chosen" ignorance of the Bible...

"Bigotry"? And your hatred of Christianity is called what?


----------



## thatguy

ItalianScallion said:


> What's sad is your "chosen" ignorance of the Bible...
> 
> "Bigotry"? And your hatred of Christianity is called what?



i certainly dont have any ignorance of the bible, i just read have read it with a critical (and logical) eye.

additionally, i dont have any hatred for christianity, i do however have a hatred for bigots who try to use religion to justify their sins


----------



## PsyOps

The pot and kettle rhetoric is astounding.


----------



## Zguy28

thatguy said:


> i certainly dont have any ignorance of the bible, i just read have read it with a critical (and logical) eye.
> 
> additionally, i dont have any hatred for christianity, i do however have a hatred for bigots who try to use religion to justify their sins


You and logic? 

Irony. You has it.


----------



## ItalianScallion

thatguy said:


> i certainly dont have any ignorance of the bible, i just read have read it with a critical (and logical) eye.
> 
> additionally, i dont have any hatred for christianity, i do however have a hatred for bigots who try to use religion to justify their sins


By what authority do YOU critique the Bible?

You cannot read the Bible with a logical mind, without the Holy Spirit leading you and, if you're not a believer, He won't allow you to understand ALL that you THINK you do. In other words: you are prevented from seeing most of the Bible truths, so don't try to sound like you know the Bible better than a true believer does. I'm not being mean here; just factual...


----------



## jetmonkey

YouTube - RUN-DMC - Mary, Mary


----------



## Starman3000m

Misdirected prayers and thanksgiving by the pope:



> On May 13, 1981, a man shot Pope John Paul II.  As the ambulance carried him to the hospital, the Pope kept praying, “Mary, my mother!  Mary, my mother!”  One year later, the Pope made a pilgrimage to Fatima to thank Our Lady of Fatima for saving his life and to consecrate the entire human race to her.  [27]   The video Catholicism: Crisis of Faith shows the Pope kissing the feet of a statue of Mary.  [28]
> MARY WORSHIP by Mary Ann Collins (A Former Catholic Nun)



(Jesus said)...*I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. *(John 14:6)


----------



## wxtornado

Nonno said:


> In my opinion, Starman3000m is one the worst kinds of religious fanatic, akin to the Phelps family of nutjobs, and is a warped pseudo Christian who haunts this forum for his own personal nasty, racist crusades against all other religious organizations that are different from his own homemade cult. Like I said before, he should get off his fat scurvy ass, head out to some third world country, find some gullible ignoramuses and start up his own con there. If he stays here here much longer he'll probably turn into another Jim Jones or Timothy McVeigh.



There are several here like that actually.  They're not hard to pick out.


----------



## wxtornado

ItalianScallion said:


> You cannot read the Bible with a logical mind, without the Holy Spirit leading you and, if you're not a believer, He won't allow you to understand ALL that you THINK you do. In other words: you are prevented from seeing most of the Bible truths, so don't try to sound like you know the Bible better than a true believer does. I'm not being mean here; just factual...



What's funnier than all this circular gobbledy-gook reasoning is that you don't even see it!


----------



## PsyOps

wxtornado said:


> What's funnier than all this circular gobbledy-gook reasoning is that you don't even see it!



Anything contrary to YOUR beliefs is 'goobledy-gook'.  Now that's some REAL logical and scientific analysis.


----------



## ItalianScallion

wxtornado said:


> What's funnier than all this circular gobbledy-gook reasoning is that you don't even see it!


Don't see what? 
Please splain to me what (you think) I don't see...


----------



## Nonno

wxtornado said:


> There are several here like that actually.  They're not hard to pick out.



ItalianScallion is only about two steps behind him.


----------



## This_person

Nonno said:


> ItalianScallion is only about two steps behind him.



A closed mind to other people's beliefs is a horrible thing.

Are you open minded?

How about you, WxTornado?

Do either of you give respect to other people having faith they can't prove (besides atheists' faith that there is no Supreme Being)?


----------



## ItalianScallion

Nonno said:


> ItalianScallion is only about two steps behind him.


Dang! That' means I have to try harder. I hate being second...


----------



## Starman3000m

ItalianScallion said:


> Dang! That' means I have to try harder. I hate being second...



Sorry, my friend. Can't help it that nonno has placed me in the lead as most notoriously "haunting" these threads and being the "worst kind of religious fanatic."  Guess that's because I have always strived to be an over-achiever in many things!  LOL


----------



## wxtornado

This_person said:


> Are you open minded?
> 
> How about you, WxTornado?



Absolutely!  How do you think I found atheism?


----------



## PsyOps

wxtornado said:


> Absolutely!  How do you think I found atheism?



So you're open minded to the possibility that there is a God?


----------



## onel0126

So yesterday IS posted that "Mary has never appeared anywhere" referring to a question about Fatima.  How do the rest of you feel about apparitions of Mary, and Jesus too for that matter?  Are they figments of people's imaginations?


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> So yesterday IS posted that "Mary has never appeared anywhere" referring to a question about Fatima.  How do the rest of you feel about apparitions of Mary, and Jesus too for that matter?  Are they figments of people's imaginations?



That too is addressed in the Gospels as a Warning that "apparitions" would appear making themselves out to be "messengers of God" but that they would mislead people with a deception and lure people away from the True and Pure message of Christ:

*No Other Gospel*
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!  (Galatians 1:6-9 NIV)

Can apparitions of "Mary" appear? No, not according to Biblical teachings because the dead do not come back to intermingle with the living.

Can an apparition of Christ appear? If it happened, it could happen in dreams so as to bring His True Message in special instances to an individual and which leads that individual to Truth.  There are testimonies of modern day Muslims having dreams of Jesus and bringing them out of belief in the Islamic version of Jesus (Isa') and showing them His Truth of Salvation.

On the other hand, an apparition of Jesus can appear which is actually a deceptive and demonic spirit. The story of told of such apparition of Jesus appearing to a man.  The apparition proclaimed, "I am Jesus, your Lord, bow down and worship me!"  The man asked the apparition to show him the nail prints in his hands and feet - the apparition vanished.

The Bible states that we are to "Test the Spirits" to see whether they are of God. (1 John 4:1) because even Satan can appear as an angel of light
(2 Corinthians 11:14)

The "apparitions that appeared to Joseph Smith were not of God but he believed they were. Mormonism was born from an encounter that Smith had with whom he proclaimed to be God and Jesus appearing to him - plus  and angel (Moroni) who appeared later to give him updated teachings.  The apparition of Moroni would appear and give Smith new "revelations" that were not even in the Holy Bible. The rest is history on how pseudo-Christian teachings can be formed from believing in apparitions that do not bring the truth of the New Testament Jesus Christ but guide people to another gospel and another "Jesus."


----------



## wxtornado

PsyOps said:


> So you're open minded to the possibility that there is a God?



Absolutely, as open minded as you and other theists are about there being the possiblity that there's a flying spaghetti monster, or that Zeus was a god.

I don't totally discount the existence of God -- I discount the existence of the messy God (or gods) theists assert.  There very well may be a God, but just like there are no triangles with 25 angles, there cannot be this impossible contradiction that most theists proffer as "God".  But I don't totally discount the idea that a God (or gods) could exist. It is possible, I suppose, though very unlikely.


----------



## PsyOps

wxtornado said:


> Absolutely, as open minded as you and other theists are about there being the possiblity that there's a flying spaghetti monster, or that Zeus was a god.



I see.  You're thinking and beliefs are contingent on what I believe.  It feels pretty good knowing people like me dictate your thinking.  



wxtornado said:


> I don't totally discount the existence of God -- I discount the existence of the messy God (or gods) theists assert.  There very well may be a God, but just like there are no triangles with 25 angles, there cannot be this impossible contradiction that most theists proffer as "God".  But I don't totally discount the idea that a God (or gods) could exist. It is possible, I suppose, though very unlikely.



So you're agnostic.  Something I must've missed or didn't expect.  I think where your expectations fail you is thinking that if there were a god that our world must be perfect; without disease, suffering, crime, etc… From such a world we would learn nothing.  God knows this and made it a world in which we get to decide our fate and learn from our environment.  I find THAT to be the perfect solution of creation.


----------



## wxtornado

PsyOps said:


> So you're agnostic.  Something I must've missed or didn't expect.



No, you misunderstand.  If you're talking about the God you assert, then no, I'm an atheist.  If you're talking about the "possibility" of a spaghetti monster or a "possible" pink rhino with no legs that runs around the earth, then yes, I'm an agnostic.


----------



## PsyOps

wxtornado said:


> No, you misunderstand.  If you're talking about the God you assert, then no, I'm an atheist.  If you're talking about the "possibility" of a spaghetti monster or a "possible" pink rhino with no legs that runs around the earth, then yes, I'm an agnostic.



Let's dispense with the .  Do you believe in the possibility of a creator?  Not my God per se... some intelligent being that could have created our universe?


----------



## Zguy28

wxtornado said:


> What's funnier than all this circular gobbledy-gook reasoning is that you don't even see it!


Its not reason, its faith. Otherwise I would agree with your claim.

John Calvin called them "spiritual spectacles" that God must give you to understand completely what the Scripture teaches about salvation. Even the very ability to understand and thereafter be saved and repent is at some point given by God. This is readily apparent from the gospels. Jesus said "He who has an ear to hear, let him hear" meaning "if you can accept it, accept it." "It" being the gospel.

It's just that way. I don't view it as "I'm better 'cause I can understand" but rather as just a theological fact of life. It's nothing I have done to merit it that's for sure.


----------



## foodcritic

wxtornado said:


> Absolutely, as open minded as you and other theists are about there being the possiblity that there's a flying spaghetti monster, or that Zeus was a god.
> 
> I don't totally discount the existence of God -- I discount the existence of the messy God (or gods) theists assert.  There very well may be a God, but just like there are no triangles with 25 angles, there cannot be this impossible contradiction that most theists proffer as "God".  But I don't totally discount the idea that a God (or gods) could exist. It is possible, I suppose, though very unlikely.



Have you read any good books about the historical basis for the flying spaghetti monster?  Did you read the book The Flying Spaghetti Monster is Not Great?  That was an awesome book.

What is it with atheists and the never ending analogy of the flying spag monster?


----------



## SamSpade

Starman3000m said:


> Can apparitions of "Mary" appear? No, not according to Biblical teachings because the dead do not come back to intermingle with the living.



Apparently they can.

*Matthew 27*

<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24181">51</sup> At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24182">52</sup> and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24183">53</sup> They came out of the tombs _after Jesus’ resurrection_ and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.


----------



## libby

SamSpade said:


> Apparently they can.
> 
> *Matthew 27*
> 
> <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24181">51</sup> At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24182">52</sup> and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24183">53</sup> They came out of the tombs _after Jesus’ resurrection_ and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.



Thank you, SamSpade!  Although I am sure SM will be telling us how this does not apply and/or that it means anything anyone but a Catholic wants it to mean.


----------



## SamSpade

libby said:


> Thank you, SamSpade!  Although I am sure SM will be telling us how this does not apply and/or that it means anything anyone but a Catholic wants it to mean.



I am not trying to refute the original poster, nor do I have anything against Catholicism, having been raised one myself, served as an altar boy, gone to Catholic schools and personal close friends with priests including a best friend who became a priest.

Nor do I think challenging this person's credentials as a nun has any bearing on what it is they have to say, because anyone could say them and still be correct. It would be as though you were told a house was on fire by a man claiming to have been a former fireman, and people doubted the house was actually on fire because his tenure as a fireman was dubious.

My observations as a Catholic were that, if you observed objectively, veneration of Mary pretty much was the same as outright worship. When I talked with priests about it, their reaction was more or less "how much can it hurt?". Even as a believer it sometimes bothered me that we worship God in a human skin called Jesus, even more it bothered me that a person who isn't divine in any sense of the word would warrant such attention.

So as a young Catholic, I eschewed anything resembling worship of a person, whether it was the mother of Jesus or any "saint". I avoided rosaries, devotional scapulars or medallions. I wasn't going to let my Muslim or Sikh school mates ridicule my religion as polytheistic.


----------



## libby

SamSpade said:


> I am not trying to refute the original poster, nor do I have anything against Catholicism, having been raised one myself, served as an altar boy, gone to Catholic schools and personal close friends with priests including a best friend who became a priest.
> 
> Nor do I think challenging this person's credentials as a nun has any bearing on what it is they have to say, because anyone could say them and still be correct. It would be as though you were told a house was on fire by a man claiming to have been a former fireman, and people doubted the house was actually on fire because his tenure as a fireman was dubious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My observations as a Catholic were that, if you observed objectively, veneration of Mary pretty much was the same as outright worship. When I talked with priests about it, their reaction was more or less "how much can it hurt?". Even as a believer it sometimes bothered me that we worship God in a human skin called Jesus, even more it bothered me that a person who
> 
> 
> 
> isn't divine in any sense of the word would warrant such attention.
> 
> So as a young Catholic, I eschewed anything resembling worship of a person, whether it was the mother of Jesus or any "saint". I avoided rosaries, devotional scapulars or medallions. I wasn't going to let my Muslim or Sikh school mates ridicule my religion as polytheistic.
Click to expand...


I would agree that it looks like worship to the outsider, and I believe that there may be some Catholics who do not know/understand the difference.  Worship, by the Catholic definition, means sacrifice. We offer sacrifice to God alone, especially and most perfectly at the Mass.  We must be willing to sacrifice our lives for God alone, and His Glory.  
The Pharisees questioned how this man could claim to be God.  I am fond of telling my children that a man cannot be God, but God can be a man.  Same logic applies when I explain the Eucharist to them.


----------



## TurboK9

Pastafarianism makes me hungry.


----------



## PsyOps

foodcritic said:


> What is it with atheists and the never ending analogy of the flying spag monster?



It’s a tangible thing that can be worshipped because it’s so tasty.  Atheists need tangibility.  They need to see, smell, taste, and touch.  That is, unless a scientist tells them something exists.  Then all they have to do is believe.


----------



## thatguy

PsyOps said:


> It’s a tangible thing that can be worshipped because it’s so tasty.  Atheists need tangibility.  They need to see, smell, taste, and touch.  That is, unless a scientist tells them something exists.  Then all they have to do is believe.



 The central belief is that *an invisible and undetectable *Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe


----------



## Starman3000m

SamSpade said:


> Apparently they can.
> 
> *Matthew 27*
> 
> <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24181">51</sup> At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24182">52</sup> and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24183">53</sup> They came out of the tombs _after Jesus’ resurrection_ and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.



Hi SamSpade,  please re-read the complete context of the verse you quoted.  I am definitely aware of that passage in scripture and I believe you misunderstand what the difference is between an "apparition" and a body being raised back to life.   "Mary" did not come back bodily to intermingle among the living again.

1.) An Apparition is the "intangible appearing" of a deceased person's spirit visibly appearing to those who claim an encounter with such experience. Such are the Marian apparitions, Virgin of Guadalupe, Fatima, etc.

Other such "Apparitions" have been claimed to have been seen by Joseph Smith (Mormonism) and Sun myung Moon.

2.) A body being "raised to life" is the actual body of a deceased person coming back out of the grave and resuming his/her bodily presence once again and going on to live with friends and family as before.  The example of one such event is when Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead and also the account of Jesus raising a young girl from being dead after her family thought she was deceased.  In these events, both resumed their human life among the living. They were "raised from the dead" - they were not "apparitions".

Conclusion: Apparitions spiritually appear and disappear in the encounter; a person "raised from the dead" has actually come back to life and continues among the living as before.

Apparitions have been used by demonic involvement to deceive others and guide them away from placing complete faith and trust in Jesus.

Those Biblical events of the people being raised from the dead are attributed to no one else but a miracle of God who is able to do so as Jesus proved before and after His death, prior to His Resurrection.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## PsyOps

thatguy said:


> The central belief is that *an invisible and undetectable *Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe



You can keep  at those that believe there is a REAL creator with your juvenile analogy, it only marginalizes your position rather than mine (or ours).  You're proving absolutely nothing.


----------



## thatguy

PsyOps said:


> You can keep  at those that believe there is a REAL creator with your juvenile analogy, it only marginalizes your position rather than mine (or ours).  You're proving absolutely nothing.



its not my analogy, and you were the one talking about it. 
All i did was to report what the FSG folks say about the FSG.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Hi SamSpade,  please re-read the complete context of the verse you quoted.  I am definitely aware of that passage in scripture and I believe you misunderstand what the difference is between an "apparition" and a body being raised back to life.   "Mary" did not come back bodily to intermingle among the living again.
> 
> 1.) An Apparition is the "intangible appearing" of a deceased person's spirit visibly appearing to those who claim an encounter with such experience. Such are the Marian apparitions, Virgin of Guadalupe, Fatima, etc.
> 
> Other such "Apparitions" have been claimed to have been seen by Joseph Smith (Mormonism) and Sun myung Moon.
> 
> 2.) A body being "raised to life" is the actual body of a deceased person coming back out of the grave and resuming his/her bodily presence once again and going on to live with friends and family as before.  The example of one such event is when Jesus rose Lazarus from the death and also the account of Jesus raising a young girl from being dead after her family thuoght she was deceased.  In these events, both resumed their human life among the living. They were "raised from the dead" - they were not "apparitions".
> 
> Conclusion: Apparitions spiritually appear and disappear in the encounter; a person "raised from the dead" has actually come back to life and continues among the living as before.
> 
> Apparitions have been used by demonic involvement to deceive others and guide them away from placing complete faith and trust in Jesus.
> 
> Those Biblical events of the people being raised from the dead are attributed to no one else but a miracle of God who is able to do so as Jesus proved before and after His death, prior to His Resurrection.
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



The text says, "appeared to them", it does not say they came back and lived again amongst everyone.
Once again you must hold the keys to all that the Bible says, because the HS has guided you and no one else.
If it even has a whiff of Catholic doctrine you refuse to see what is right before your eyes.


----------



## thatguy

libby said:


> The text says, "appeared to them", it does not say they came back and lived again amongst everyone.
> Once again you must hold the keys to all that the Bible says, because the HS has guided you and no one else.
> If it even has a whiff of Catholic doctrine you refuse to see what is right before your eyes.



not to mention the wealth of "extra biblical" teachings that he is using to defend his position......


----------



## PsyOps

thatguy said:


> its not my analogy, and you were the one talking about it.
> *All i did was to report what the FSG folks say about the FSG*.



Yeah, okay...


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> The text says, "appeared to them", it does not say they came back and lived again amongst everyone.
> Once again you must hold the keys to all that the Bible says, because the HS has guided you and no one else.
> If it even has a whiff of Catholic doctrine you refuse to see what is right before your eyes.



Nope... the text reads: "... The bodies of many holy people who had died were *raised to life*. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

Their BODIES were raised to life.  Their BODIES appears to many people.  They were not ghosts, or imaged on toast, or on a garage, or inside a potato.  They were actual people raised back to life.


----------



## thatguy

PsyOps said:


> Yeah, okay...




so you are saying you weren't talking about it? or are you saying I brought it up? Or are you saying thats not what they say about themselves?

what exactly is it that you are "yeah Ok" with?


----------



## PsyOps

thatguy said:


> so you are saying you weren't talking about it? or are you saying I brought it up? Or are you saying thats not what they say about themselves?
> 
> what exactly is it that you are "yeah Ok" with?



No more or less than you.  What does that have to do with using a lame analogy to try to show how stupid Christians are for believing in some inanimate being that no one can prove exists?  I’ve read enough of your posts to know where you’re coming from.


----------



## thatguy

PsyOps said:


> No more or less than you.  What does that have to do with using a lame analogy to try to show how stupid Christians are for believing in some inanimate being that no one can prove exists?  I’ve read enough of your posts to know where you’re coming from.



what i posted has NOTHING to do with implying christians are stupid for their beleifs. I was reponding to your mischarecterization of the FSM, and what the alledged FSM beliefs are.


----------



## PsyOps

thatguy said:


> what i posted has NOTHING to do with implying christians are stupid for their beleifs. I was reponding to your mischarecterization of the FSM, and what the alledged FSM beliefs are.



That's the part you seem to be missing... there is no belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created the universe.  It's a means to show how stupid to it is to believe in a higher being; a being no one can prove exists.  This is not directed at you but, devoid of any real retort to a belief in God this is what atheists are left with; conjuring up some childish analogy that is intended to make believers look stupid.

Edit:  And you missed the original intent what I posted to Foodcritic... Atheist demand God doesn't exist because God is this invisible, intangible being that can't be proved.  Because it lacks these qualities it can't possibly exist.  Therefore, they created a tangible thing as an analogy to show how ridiculous it is to believe something tangible can create the universe, let alone something intangilbe.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Speaking for myself, I've tried to explain how we view Mary, but you won't have it.  You insist it is worship that is due to God alone.  You insist on telling me what I believe and what my church teaches.  You insist on going to "former Catholics" for your info.  Try going to "former Bible Christians" who have converted to the RCC.  You'll know they are not Catholic because of indoctrination, but because they finally decided to listen instead of talk.



I guess you forgot to read this part from Starman's OP:

"LETTING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SPEAK FOR ITSELF 

            I believe in letting people speak for themselves.  Therefore my primary sources about Catholic doctrines and history come from the Catholic Church. "

For instance, this little number:

 ...  Pope Benedict XV said of Mary that “[O]ne can justly say that with Christ, she herself redeemed mankind.” [10]   Pope Pius IX said, “Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin... so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.” [11] 

So when did Jesus make His mommy into His Co-Redemptrix?


----------



## thatguy

PsyOps said:


> That's the part you seem to be missing... there is no belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created the universe.  It's a means to show how stupid to it is to believe in a higher being; a being no one can prove exists.  This is not directed at you but, devoid of any real retort to a belief in God this is what atheists are left with; conjuring up some childish analogy that is intended to make believers look stupid.



again, you would be wrong. the origial "creator" of the FSM did so in protest to a law that would allow teaching of intelligent design in schools. The FSM wasn't aimed at christians, but at the government that was planning on allowing these religious teachings in school.


as for beleivers "looking stupid" FSM or not, your beliefs are yours. If your beliefs seem silly when you look at them when juxtaposed with the FSM maybe you should reexamine what you believe. :justsaying:


----------



## Starman3000m

PsyOps said:


> Nope... the text reads: "... The bodies of many holy people who had died were *raised to life*. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."
> 
> Their BODIES were raised to life.  Their BODIES appears to many people.  They were not ghosts, or imaged on toast, or on a garage, or inside a potato.  They were actual people raised back to life.



Exactly Right! Just like Lazarus (John 11:43-45; and the young girl (Mark 5:41-43) that Jesus brought back to life (bodily) to resume living there on earth as before. 

This was one of the Biblical miracles that can only be attributed to the power of Jesus which proved to people then and there that Jesus was really whom He claimed to be.  Thus, the final proof even upon His crucifixion, that Jesus not only had the power to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, make the dumb to speak, the deaf to hear, make the blind to see, make the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk,  but to *raise the dead!*
*Which He did*



> and all the people who saw this "glorified the God of Israel."
> (Matthew 15:31)


----------



## PsyOps

thatguy said:


> again, you would be wrong. the origial "creator" of the FSM did so in protest to a law that would allow teaching of intelligent design in schools. The FSM wasn't aimed at christians, but at the government that was planning on allowing these religious teachings in school.



Not wrong… These are atheists that are aimed at shutting down religion in our public square; their target particularly being Christianity.  They are there at every Christian holiday sticking their noses into our public expression of our faith.  You can tar over this any way you want, but the fact of the matter is this so-called ‘FSM’ conjured up a make-believe ‘god’ in an effort to try to show how dumb it is to believe in a god.  If you want to literalize their purpose and refuse to read between the lines, that’s fine; I know what their purpose is regardless of how their ‘movement’ was born.



thatguy said:


> as for beleivers "looking stupid" FSM or not, your beliefs are yours. If your beliefs seem silly when you look at them when juxtaposed with the FSM maybe you should reexamine what you believe. :justsaying:



Are you kidding me?  I thought I made it clear they are a lame and juvenile movement.  They have no affect on my beliefs.  Certainly their purpose is to shut religion up, but their target audience are not believers; they are non-believers that might be swayed by their propaganda.  By choosing such a silly character for a ‘god’ only marginalizes them, not the other way around.  It is THEY that need to reexamine their purpose, not me.


----------



## Toxick

thatguy said:


> as for beleivers "looking stupid" FSM or not, your beliefs are yours. If your beliefs seem silly when you look at them when juxtaposed with the FSM maybe you should reexamine what you believe. :justsaying:





PFFT...

You can make *any* opinion or belief sound stupid if you satirize, represent or misrepresent it with enough scorn and contempt.

Politicians make a living - and, incidentally, run our lives - based upon this concept and the exercise thereof.




Being the subject of ridicule by clever naysayers is hardly a good reason to reexamine what you believe.


----------



## PsyOps

Toxick said:


> PFFT...
> 
> You can make *any* opinion or belief sound stupid if you satirize, represent or misrepresent it with enough scorn and contempt.
> 
> Politicians make a living - and, incidentally, run our lives - based upon this concept and the exercise thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being the subject of ridicule by clever naysayers is hardly a good reason to reexamine what you believe.



Stated far better than I could.


----------



## Zguy28

baydoll said:


> So when did Jesus make His mommy into His Co-Redemptrix?


A very interesting question indeed given the quotes from the Papacy.


----------



## thatguy

Toxick said:


> PFFT...
> 
> You can make *any* opinion or belief sound stupid if you satirize, represent or misrepresent it with enough scorn and contempt.
> 
> Politicians make a living - and, incidentally, run our lives - based upon this concept and the exercise thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being the subject of ridicule by clever naysayers is hardly a good reason to reexamine what you believe.



thats pretty much my point. If some BS analogy makes you feel silly about your beleifs, you certainly aren't holding them very dear. South Park has satarized just about every religion (even atheism) and I doubt that anyone changed or seriously questioned their beliefs.

I didn't mean to indicate that anyone should reexamine close held relgious beleifs based on an analogy any more than i would expect the catholics of this forum to reexamine what they believe after reading starman's cut and pastes from the "got questions" prophet.


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> Nope... the text reads: "... The bodies of many holy people who had died were *raised to life*. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."
> 
> Their BODIES were raised to life.  Their BODIES appears to many people.  They were not ghosts, or imaged on toast, or on a garage, or inside a potato.  They were actual people raised back to life.



And that is what we (Catholics) believe that Mary did.  We believe she has been resurrected, body and soul, into new life in Heaven.  God has allowed her to appear at various times in history to send us messages and/or strengthen our faith.  Perfectly in keeping with the Scripture Sam cited.
Apparition does not mean to imply it was a ghost or anything.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> I guess you forgot to read this part from Starman's OP:
> 
> "LETTING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SPEAK FOR ITSELF
> 
> I believe in letting people speak for themselves.  Therefore my primary sources about Catholic doctrines and history come from the Catholic Church. "
> 
> For instance, this little number:
> 
> ...  Pope Benedict XV said of Mary that “[O]ne can justly say that with Christ, she herself redeemed mankind.” [10]   Pope Pius IX said, “Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin... so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.” [11]
> 
> So when did Jesus make His mommy into His Co-Redemptrix?



If you believe that we received Jesus from her womb, by her "be it done onto me", etc., then yes, we receive healing by her co-operation with God's plan for salvation.
If you miss the basic premise, of course you're going to misunderstand the bigger picture.
If you don't get simple math, you're going to be lost when you get to algebra.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> And that is what we (Catholics) believe that Mary did.  We believe she has been resurrected, body and soul, into new life in Heaven.  God has allowed her to appear at various times in history to send us messages and/or strengthen our faith.  Perfectly in keeping with the Scripture Sam cited.
> Apparition does not mean to imply it was a ghost or anything.



Is Mary's being "Assumed" into heaven the exact same as Jesus' being "Resurrected" and ascended up to Heaven?


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Is Mary's being "Assumed" into heaven the exact same as Jesus' being "Resurrected" and ascended up to Heaven?



You know very well it is not.  I've told you over and over that the words used, ascended vs. assumed, indicate that Jesus rose by His own power while Mary had to be brought up because she has no power of her own. 
Are you trying to bait me w/ something?


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Are you trying to bait me w/ something?



Who, me????

OK.. I love you dearly, libby, but now let's narrow it down to this: 


1.) Did Mary die first and then become assumed up to Heaven, or was she still alive when she was assumed and she is there in her complete human body of flesh, blood and bone?  Please cite the RCC references.

2.) Along with His Disciples, more than five-hundred (500) people witnessed the Resurrected Lord, Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:6) throughout a period of forty (40) days (Acts 1:3) after His Passion.

Mary's Assumption would also have been a major event to the 1st-century believers. The question is: How many people witnessed Mary being assumed up to Heaven and where in the Holy Bible can that be found?


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> And that is what we (Catholics) believe that Mary did.  We believe she has been resurrected, body and soul, into new life in Heaven.  God has allowed her to appear at various times in history to send us messages and/or strengthen our faith.  Perfectly in keeping with the Scripture Sam cited.
> Apparition does not mean to imply it was a ghost or anything.



If you’re saying Mary came back as Mary in her actual physical body, then we are talking about the same thing.  All that I’ve seen is Mary has appeared as images as a result of something else, or a statue (man-made) crying, or some sort of apparition that is not the actual physical Mary.  I find it a little odd that folks see images in potatoes, toast, on a garage door, etc… and attributing it to either Jesus or Mary since we really don’t know what either looked like.  So, how can anyone say for sure that’s who it is?  Perhaps it’s an imagine cast by Satan meant to deceive you.

The scripture Sam cited was people, in their actual physical bodies being raised from the grave.  I think it’s safe to assume these people raised from the dead died again as a result of old age or other nature cause and returned to the grave.

I’m not going to argue with you on your belief that Mary has appeared to people in some form other than the actual human body.  If that is what you believe, then nothing I will say will change that.  The only thing I will say is it has no bearing on your salvation.  Seeing Mary in some image will not save you.  From that sense it provides no real meaning except to give you inspiration.  I am inspired enough just looking at nature and the beauty of God’s creation; that is good enough for me.



> For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time. - Mark 13:22-23


----------



## 2ndAmendment

SamSpade said:


> Apparently they can.
> 
> *Matthew 27*
> 
> <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24181">51</sup> At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24182">52</sup> and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24183">53</sup> They came out of the tombs _after Jesus’ resurrection_ and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.



Just to keep things straight, a person being raised from the dead is not an apparition. Matthew 27 is referring to actual people being bodily raised.


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> If you’re saying Mary came back as Mary in her actual physical body, then we are talking about the same thing.  All that I’ve seen is Mary has appeared as images as a result of something else, or a statue (man-made) crying, or some sort of apparition that is not the actual physical Mary.  I find it a little odd that folks see images in potatoes, toast, on a garage door, etc… and attributing it to either Jesus or Mary since we really don’t know what either looked like.  So, how can anyone say for sure that’s who it is?  Perhaps it’s an imagine cast by Satan meant to deceive you.
> 
> The scripture Sam cited was people, in their actual physical bodies being raised from the grave.  I think it’s safe to assume these people raised from the dead died again as a result of old age or other nature cause and returned to the grave.
> 
> I’m not going to argue with you on your belief that Mary has appeared to people in some form other than the actual human body.  If that is what you believe, then nothing I will say will change that.  The only thing I will say is it has no bearing on your salvation.  Seeing Mary in some image will not save you.  From that sense it provides no real meaning except to give you inspiration.  I am inspired enough just looking at nature and the beauty of God’s creation; that is good enough for me.



No one ever said that seeing Mary would save them! Am I having the knee jerk reaction, or are you?  The messages that Catholics believe Mary brings are messages of repentance and obedience to her Son.
Catholics are NOT, I repeat NOT even required to believe that these apparitions happened. The farthest the Church goes in it's "approval" of the apparitions is to say that the message is authentic and is not contrary to the Faith.  We are not asked/required to do or believe anything with respect to them.


----------



## libby

2ndAmendment said:


> Just to keep things straight, a person being raised from the dead is not an apparition. Matthew 27 is referring to actual people being bodily raised.



We believe that Mary was bodily raised and then assumed into Heaven.  Scripture tells us that it was done with Enoch and Elijah.  A Catholic would say that Jesus would offer that same glorious assumption to His mother, who was chosen and blessed among all people of the world, to bring Him into the world.
Does anyone (Bible Christian) contemplate the magnificence of her calling?  Does anyone here read what the OT says about how we are to treat mother/father/parent and think that Jesus would do less than that?
Her role in salvation history is greater than all forefathers, prophets and apostle combined, so what_ever_ Scripture implies or tells us was granted to any other person, we believe was granted to the Blessed Virgin Mary many times over.
Eve was created without original sin, Mary was more privileged than Eve.  Enoch and Elijah were assumed,  Mary was more priviliged than they.  The Ark of the Covenant was a pure vessel, Mary was purer than that was dictated to be.  
Marian beliefs really follow very logically, in my not-so-humble-opinion, from her maternity.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> *If you believe that we received Jesus from her womb, by her "be it done onto me", etc., then yes, we receive healing by her co-operation with God's plan for salvation.*If you miss the basic premise, of course you're going to misunderstand the bigger picture.
> If you don't get simple math, you're going to be lost when you get to algebra.



So wouldn't that make her a Goddess?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> And that is what we (Catholics) believe that Mary did.  We believe she has been resurrected, body and soul, into new life in Heaven.  God has allowed her to appear at various times in history to send us messages and/or strengthen our faith.  Perfectly in keeping with the Scripture Sam cited.
> Apparition does not mean to imply it was a ghost or anything.



How do you know that's really Mary and not some *spirit* deceiving you?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> You know very well it is not.  I've told you over and over that the words used, ascended vs. assumed, indicate that Jesus rose by His own power while Mary had to be brought up because she has no power of her own.
> Are you trying to bait me w/ something?





I have a question? (or two, or three, lol...) 

1.) Who did those people who saw Mary *assumed* into heaven tell about this amazing event,  who later told your Church? 

2.) When was the first writing about it? And finally, 

3.) if there were eyewitnesses, why did they not pass along whether or not Mary died before she was assumed?

(Edited for grammar.)


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> We believe that Mary was bodily raised and then assumed into Heaven. * Scripture tells us that it was done with Enoch and Elijah.*




Yes, precisely.  SCRIPTURE tells us Elijah and Enoch were translated to heaven without seeing death.   

So where does the Scripture say anything about Mary being translated to heaven? 

And please do this without resorting to 'well, it could have happened, ya know' thanks. Show us in Scripture where it tells us Mary was received up to Heaven like Enoch and Elijah.

(Edited: more grammar)


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> No one ever said that seeing Mary would save them! Am I having the knee jerk reaction, or are you?  The messages that Catholics believe Mary brings are messages of repentance and obedience to her Son.
> Catholics are NOT, I repeat NOT even required to believe that these apparitions happened. The farthest the Church goes in it's "approval" of the apparitions is to say that the message is authentic and is not contrary to the Faith.  We are not asked/required to do or believe anything with respect to them.



The only reason I brought the ‘Mary saving them’ is to point out that these apparitions serve no purpose in our salvation.  But I’ll repeat my point that since no one really knows what Mary looked like, I don’t know how anyone can say they saw her and that such a vision could be ‘approved’.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Does anyone here read what the OT says about how we are to treat mother/father/parent and think that Jesus would do less than that?



The OT says to honor OUR mothers and fathers, libby. Nowhere does it say to pray to, give our hearts, our souls, our minds, our body our everything to Jesus' mommy like your Church says. 

Jesus wants us to devote ourselves to HIM not her.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Her role in salvation history is greater than all forefathers, prophets and apostle combined, so what_ever_ Scripture implies or tells us was granted to any other person, we believe was granted to the Blessed Virgin Mary many times over.



Oh really? 

Where does Scripture say Mary is greater than all the forefathers, prophets and apostles combined? 

This is blatant Goddess Worship, libby.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Eve was created without original sin, Mary was more privileged than Eve.  Enoch and Elijah were assumed,  Mary was more priviliged than they.  The Ark of the Covenant was a pure vessel, Mary was purer than that was dictated to be.



Libby's Catholic belief: Mary= God. 

Thus proving Starman's original point. 

Pure Goddess Worship.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Marian beliefs really follow very logically, in my not-so-humble-opinion, from her maternity.



Marian beliefs really follow very logically, in mho, from false doctrines from a very fake Church.


----------



## baydoll

Zguy28 said:


> A very interesting question indeed given the quotes from the Papacy.



Thanks Zguy. 

Interesting how libby answered it too.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> The only reason I brought the ‘Mary saving them’ is to point out that these apparitions serve no purpose in our salvation.  But I’ll repeat my point that since no one really knows what Mary looked like, I don’t know how anyone can say they saw her and that such a vision could be ‘approved’.



Excellent point. 

And furthermore, how do they know this isn't some *spirit* claiming to be Mary?

2 Corinthians 11:14 and Galatians 1:6-10 and all that.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> The OT says to honor OUR mothers and fathers, libby. Nowhere does it say to pray to, give our hearts, our souls, our minds, our body our everything to _Jesus' mommy like your Church says_.
> 
> Jesus wants us to devote ourselves to HIM not her.



Since you choose to take on such a disrespectful tone, I'm not going to bother responding to your posts.


----------



## onel0126

libby said:


> Since you choose to take on such a disrespectful tone, I'm not going to bother responding to your posts.




Avatar and location say it all.........


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> Avatar and location say it all.........



Let's see here...
______________________________________________________
baydoll's Avatar reads: 
"I Love Jesus"

and the location reads:
"in the dwelling place of the Most High"
______________________________________________________

Hmmm.. What's wrong with proclaiming one's heart-felt feeling for Jesus and knowing where one's eternal destiny will be and is assured through personal faith in Him alone?



> So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (Romans 1:15-17)


----------



## onel0126

Starman3000m said:


> Let's see hear...
> ______________________________________________________
> baydoll's Avatar reads:
> "I Love Jesus"
> 
> and the location reads:
> "in the dwelling place of the Most High"
> ______________________________________________________
> 
> Hmmm.. What's wrong with proclaiming one's heart-felt feeling for Jesus and knowing where one's eternal destiny will be and is assured through personal faith in Him alone?



Nothing on the surface.  Those that profess the loudest......are generally using it as a billboard for look at me, I'm a Christian and I want you to know it.  Jesus fish on cars.....Bibles on the back ledge of cars.......all about the show alot of the times.


----------



## Zguy28

onel0126 said:


> Nothing on the surface.  Those that profess the loudest......are generally using it as a billboard for look at me, I'm a Christian and I want you to know it.  Jesus fish on cars.....Bibles on the back ledge of cars.......all about the show alot of the times.


And other times it's gratitude for salvation.

However your point is taken as well. I hate bumper stickers. Seems a cheap way to share your faith.


----------



## Zguy28

libby said:


> Since you choose to take on such a disrespectful tone, I'm not going to bother responding to your posts.


I didn't see it as disrespectful. If anything this post makes you seem immature. Sorry if that sounds disrespectful as well. It's not intended to be.


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> Her role in salvation history is greater than all forefathers, prophets and apostle combined, so what_ever_ Scripture implies or tells us was granted to any other person, we believe was granted to the Blessed Virgin Mary many times over.


Gotta disagree with you my sweet lady friend. I doubt that Jesus would have said this if Mary was greater. (Matthew 11):
11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women *there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist;* yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 
13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15 Whoever has ears, let them hear.


baydoll said:


> Oh really?
> Where does Scripture say Mary is greater than all the forefathers, prophets and apostles combined? This is blatant Goddess Worship, libby.


It doesn't...


onel0126 said:


> Those that profess the loudest......are generally using it as a billboard for look at me, I'm a Christian and I want you to know it.  Jesus fish on cars.....Bibles on the back ledge of cars.......all about the show alot of the times.


Tell us all about it: "BEAD MUMBLER". 

Hey, you folks continue on; you're doing a great job. Don't let me interrupt...


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> I didn't see it as disrespectful. If anything this post makes you seem immature. Sorry if that sounds disrespectful as well. It's not intended to be.



Referring to Mary as "mommy" was meant to be snarky.  There are no two ways about it.  The discussion has been going well with many who are working to be respectful while disagreeing. I will not be baited by someone who clearly has an axe to grind.


----------



## thatguy

ItalianScallion said:


> Tell us all about it: "BEAD MUMBLER".



I must have missed the part where jesus said "now go forth and be openly disrepectful because i have given you alone the ability to understand god"


----------



## onel0126

ItalianScallion said:


> Tell us all about it: "BEAD MUMBLER".



I have you to thank for the bead mumbler label.  You actually used this term(first I'd ever heard of it--but it is damn funny!) a long time ago in a post.


----------



## ItalianScallion

thatguy said:


> I must have missed the part where jesus said "now go forth and be openly disrepectful because i have given you alone the ability to understand god"


You also missed the part where He said NOT to be such a "sour grapes" kind of person on this forum. Time to grow up a bit son and have some fun here. I know you won't do this but please try. 

And, btw, show me where I've been disrespectful and show me where Jesus gave me "ALONE the ability to understand God". As I've said before, I know a lot about God but I am not the only one on here who does.


onel0126 said:


> I have you to thank for the bead mumbler label.  You actually used this term(first I'd ever heard of it--but it is damn funny!) a long time ago in a post.


I did? Cool! In that case it's very becoming on here.


----------



## thatguy

ItalianScallion said:


> You also missed the part where He said NOT to be such a "sour grapes" kind of person on this forum. Time to grow up a bit son and have some fun here. I know you won't do this but please try.
> 
> And, btw, show me where I've been disrespectful and show me where Jesus gave me "ALONE the ability to understand God". As I've said before, I know a lot about God but I am not the only one on here who does.
> 
> I did? Cool! In that case it's very becoming on here.



well then i guess calling you a zombie worshiper wouldn't be disrespectful either


----------



## ItalianScallion

thatguy said:


> well then i guess calling you a zombie worshiper wouldn't be disrespectful either


Son, you can call me anything you want and I won't care. See?


----------



## 2ndAmendment

libby said:


> We believe that Mary was bodily raised and then assumed into Heaven.  Scripture tells us that it was done with Enoch and Elijah.  A Catholic would say that Jesus would offer that same glorious assumption to His mother, who was chosen and blessed among all people of the world, to bring Him into the world.
> Does anyone (Bible Christian) contemplate the magnificence of her calling?  Does anyone here read what the OT says about how we are to treat mother/father/parent and think that Jesus would do less than that?
> Her role in salvation history is greater than all forefathers, prophets and apostle combined, so what_ever_ Scripture implies or tells us was granted to any other person, we believe was granted to the Blessed Virgin Mary many times over.
> Eve was created without original sin, Mary was more privileged than Eve.  Enoch and Elijah were assumed,  Mary was more priviliged than they.  The Ark of the Covenant was a pure vessel, Mary was purer than that was dictated to be.
> Marian beliefs really follow very logically, in my not-so-humble-opinion, from her maternity.


One would think that if that happened, it would have been something the Apostles would have proclaimed and would be noted in the Bible as was Enoch and Elijah. As I understand it, the assumption of Mary was not even declared an official Catholic belief until it was by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. Isn't that correct?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Since you choose to take on such a disrespectful tone, I'm not going to bother responding to your posts.



How convenient and mature of you. 

Displaying Catholic Apologetic Technique Number One: Tossing out labels to your opponent whenever Catholic traditions and agenda are questioned will usually brings any real dialogue to a close. You will not only demonized your opponent, but will also claimed victim status for yourself.


(edited: bad spelling and changed my mind.  
 )


----------



## baydoll

Zguy28 said:


> And other times it's gratitude for salvation.
> 
> However your point is taken as well. I hate bumper stickers. Seems a cheap way to share your faith.



Amen. Thanks, Zguy, that's exactly what it is. And actually I hate bumper stickers too. Messes up my pretty car.


----------



## baydoll

ItalianScallion said:


> ]
> 
> It doesn't...



Precisely... ; )


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Referring to Mary as "mommy" was meant to be snarky.  There are no two ways about it.  The discussion has been going well with many who are working to be respectful while disagreeing. I will not be baited by someone who clearly has an axe to grind.



Actually I wasn't trying to be snarky in the least and I have no "axe" to grind. I'm just trying to have a discussion with you.  : )

So what did Jesus call her?


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> How convenient and mature of you.
> 
> Displaying Catholic Apologetic Technique Number One: Tossing out labels to your opponent whenever Catholic traditions and agenda are questioned will usually brings any real dialogue to a close. You will not only demonized your opponent, but will also claimed victim status for yourself.
> 
> 
> (edited: bad spelling and changed my mind.
> )



Glad to see you removed that last sentence.  It went too far.  So far, you really haven't added anything constructive.  Just anti-Catholic rhetoric and barbs thrown at Libby.  Hopefully, you will grow up soon and post well thought out rebuttals instead of one liners and zingers.


----------



## baydoll

2ndAmendment said:


> One would think that if that happened, it would have been something the Apostles would have proclaimed and would be noted in the Bible as was Enoch and Elijah. As I understand it, the assumption of Mary was not even declared an official Catholic belief until it was by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. Isn't that correct?



Well isn't that interesting! So the early church just happened to forget this (supposedly) extremely important Apostolic doctrine/tradition?


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> Glad to see you removed that last sentence.  It went too far.  So far, you really haven't added anything constructive.  Just anti-Catholic rhetoric and barbs thrown at Libby.  Hopefully, you will grow up soon and post well thought out rebuttals instead of one liners and zingers.



lol! 

I knew it was only a matter of time before somebody bought up the Accusation of Hate/Anti-Catholic Technique: 


Insist vehemently that your opponent is full of hate and anti-Catholic.
It is always advisable to paint your opponent as hateful and anti-Catholic. 
This technique should always contain a reference,
to your extreme caringness and the limitless bounds of your great humility.

Here's another popular one:

We do not have to prove any of our assertions, ignore all our contradictions, and by the way you are anti-catholic and antagonistic. Just for good measure here are some personal attacks and condescending language to prove my point.


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> lol!
> 
> I knew it was only a matter of time before somebody bought up the Accusation of Hate Technique:
> 
> 
> Insist vehemently that your opponent is full of hate.
> It is always advisable to paint your opponent as hateful.
> This technique should always contain a reference,
> to your extreme caringness and the limitless bounds of your great humility.
> 
> Here's another popular one:
> 
> We do not have to prove any of our assertions, ignore all our contradictions, and by the way you are anti-catholic and antagonistic. Just for good measure here are some personal attacks and condescending language to prove my point.



Wow, talk about indoctrination.....You seem more schooled on how to refute the evil Romans than scripture itself.  I bet you have a book on how to do this like Marie.  Man up, what church do you attend?  I also sense a little paranoia.  Read some of your fellow protestants posts.  Read them again.


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> Wow, talk about indoctrination.....You seem more schooled on how to refute the evil Romans than scripture itself.  I bet you have a book on how to do this like Marie.  Man up, what church do you attend?  I also sense a little paranoia.  Read some of your fellow protestants posts.  Read them again.



Wow, talk about diverting and derailing the thread from the OP....


----------



## Zguy28

baydoll said:


> lol!
> 
> I knew it was only a matter of time before somebody bought up the Accusation of Hate/Anti-Catholic Technique:
> 
> 
> Insist vehemently that your opponent is full of hate and anti-Catholic.
> It is always advisable to paint your opponent as hateful and anti-Catholic.
> This technique should always contain a reference,
> to your extreme caringness and the limitless bounds of your great humility.
> 
> Here's another popular one:
> 
> We do not have to prove any of our assertions, ignore all our contradictions, and by the way you are anti-catholic and antagonistic. Just for good measure here are some personal attacks and condescending language to prove my point.


I have to admit that in my many, and I mean many, dialogues with Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox apologists, quite often they come off arrogant, condescending, and pulled the "hate" card. 

They make me think of Matthew 20 and the worldly attitude that John and James displayed.



> 20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21And he said to her, "What do you want?" She said to him, "Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom." 22Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?" They said to him, "We are able." 23He said to them, "You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father." 24And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. 25But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."



But I have also met several who did not and who were quite humble and willing to discuss things objectively. Peter Kreeft comes to mind as a more popular one.

That being noted, I also have met my fair share of evangelicals who were the same way or worse, and many who were not. 

We all have fundamentalists (those who are belligerent) in our churches. I've seen it in my own Southern Baptist church. I have talked with Libby before, and while I feel that at times she doesn't truly look objectively at doctrinal matters (do any of us do it 100% of the time?), a lot of times she does. And she is sincere in my experience.


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> Wow, talk about diverting and derailing the thread from the OP....




Again, what church do you attend?  I see you would rather just enjoy the anonymity of the internet....


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> I have to admit that in my many, and I mean many, dialogues with Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox apologists, quite often they come off arrogant, condescending, and pulled the "hate" card.
> 
> They make me think of Matthew 20 and the worldly attitude that John and James displayed.
> 
> 
> 
> But I have also met several who did not and who were quite humble and willing to discuss things objectively. Peter Kreeft comes to mind as a more popular one.
> 
> That being noted, I also have met my fair share of evangelicals who were the same way or worse, and many who were not.
> 
> We all have fundamentalists (those who are belligerent) in our churches. I've seen it in my own Southern Baptist church. I have talked with Libby before, and while I feel that at times she doesn't truly look objectively at doctrinal matters *(do any of us do it 100% of the time?), *a lot of times she does. And she is sincere in my experience.




Thank you, that means a lot.  If we could only all recognize that we have pre-dispositions, and that each of us will fail in some manner in our understanding the fullness of God.  
We should be able to discuss our respective faiths and the reasons for the teachings of our faiths (the RCC didn't pull it's doctrines out of it's ear)without being ridiculed or maliciously accused of God-knows-what!


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> Thank you, that means a lot.  If we could only all recognize that we have pre-dispositions, and that each of us will fail in some manner in our understanding the fullness of God.
> We should be able to discuss our respective faiths and the reasons for the teachings of our faiths (the RCC didn't pull it's doctrines out of it's ear)without being ridiculed or maliciously accused of God-knows-what!



I will have to second ZGuy about you.  I’ve not met you in person but feel you are objective and do not come across as arrogant or hateful.  And you’re confident in your convictions; which to the pre-disposed can come across as arrogant.  For them I say pull of your ideological blinders.

I like to think I have been fair and objective in my questions and concerns about all denominations; but I tend to ask more about the RCC because I understand it the least.  And who better to ask about these things than people who practice it.

In the end, we all still have the same God and same Jesus.  We believers are brothers and sister and should behave accordingly.  I’m reading a lot of discontent between believers simply because we practice things differently.  Can’t we discuss and question without being belligerent and judgmental?


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> Again, what church do you attend?  I see you would rather just enjoy the anonymity of the internet....



Again, what does this have to do with Mary Worship?


----------



## baydoll

2ndAmendment said:


> One would think that if that happened, it would have been something the Apostles would have proclaimed and would be noted in the Bible as was Enoch and Elijah. As I understand it, the assumption of Mary was not even declared an official Catholic belief until it was by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. Isn't that correct?



That is correct. 

And were you also aware of the fact that the "infallible" Roman Catholic Church declared the Assumption of Mary as heresy back in 496 and 520?

(edited: by two different Popes, yet!)


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> Again, what does this have to do with Mary Worship?



Point confirmed.


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> Can’t we discuss and question without being belligerent and judgmental?



I apologize to everyone if I came off as belligerent and judgmental. I truly did not mean to do so.


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> I apologize to everyone if I came off as belligerent and judgmental. I truly did not mean to do so.



Yes you did, you just called out by non-Catholics thus the mea culpa.  Your future posts will reveal if you "did not mean to do so."


----------



## baydoll

Zguy28 said:


> I have to admit that in my many, and I mean many, dialogues with Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox apologists, quite often they come off arrogant, condescending, and pulled the "hate" card.
> 
> They make me think of Matthew 20 and the worldly attitude that John and James displayed.
> 
> 
> 
> But I have also met several who did not and who were quite humble and willing to discuss things objectively. Peter Kreeft comes to mind as a more popular one.
> 
> That being noted, I also have met my fair share of evangelicals who were the same way or worse, and many who were not.
> 
> We all have fundamentalists (those who are belligerent) in our churches. I've seen it in my own Southern Baptist church. I have talked with Libby before, and while I feel that at times she doesn't truly look objectively at doctrinal matters (do any of us do it 100% of the time?), a lot of times she does. And she is sincere in my experience.



Duly noted. Thanks for that, Zguy.


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> Yes you did, you just called out by non-Catholics thus the mea culpa.  Your future posts will reveal if you "did not mean to do so."



Oh please. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I just apologize to everyone? So who is dragging this thing out? And what did Jesus say about forgiveness?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> the teachings of our faiths (the RCC didn't pull it's doctrines out of it's ear)without being ridiculed or maliciously accused of God-knows-what!



Getting back on track, where did the RCC get its Mary's Assumption Doctrine from?

(edited...grammar again. )


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> I apologize to everyone if I came off as belligerent and judgmental. I truly did not mean to do so.



I wasn't specifically pointing at you.  The tone comes from a lot of folks, to include me - from time to time.  Considering the old cliché to never discuss religion or politics, we all have to realize this is a very controversial subject and should take what others say with a grain of salt.


----------



## foodcritic

PsyOps said:


> I wasn't specifically pointing at you.  The tone comes from a lot of folks, to include me - from time to time.  *Considering the old cliché to never discuss religion or politics,* we all have to realize this is a very controversial subject and should take what others say with a grain of salt.



My two favorite subjects!!!!!


----------



## libby

The fact is, we (Catholics) cannot "prove" the Assumption of Mary from Scripture; what we do believe we have is plenty of evidence. 

I'm not going t o try to improve on Dr. Scott Hahn,
_"In his recent book Hail Holy Queen, Prof. Hahn shows conclusively that the story of the visitation of Mary to her cousin Elizabeth in St. Luke's gospel, chapter one, bears numerous and remarkable similarities to the account in the Old Testament of King David bringing the Ark of the Covenant up to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6. The similarities are too many to be accidental: St. Luke means to tell us, in his own characteristic way, that Mary herself is the new Ark of the Covenant. Just as the Ark in ancient Israel contained the tables of the Law, and some of the manna-bread from heaven — signs of the Old Covenant — so Mary's womb contained the sign of the promise of the New Covenant and the true Bread of Life: Jesus our Savior Himself. Thus, it was already believed by the apostolic Church that Mary was the new Ark of the Covenant.

Now the old Ark of the Covenant had been lost for many centuries, and none of the Jews knew where it could be found (indeed, it remains missing to this very day). With that in mind, look what we find at the end of chapter 11 of the Book of Revelation:



Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of His covenant was seen within His temple, and there were flashes of lightening, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake and heavy hail.


Wow, what an audio-visual spectacular! The Ark had been found! But look what the Revelation tells us next (and remember: the chapter and verse divisions of the Bible are not part of the original texts: they were inserted centuries later by monks to help us locate Scripture verses more easily, so the following sentence from the start of chapter 12 came directly after the one at the end of chapter 11 in the original manuscripts):



And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child. ... he brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron.


Clearly, what St. John was shown in his vision, recorded here in the Book of Revelation, is that the Ark of the Covenant is now in heaven as a "woman clothed with the sun" whose child is the Messiah (who will rule with a "rod of iron," cf. Ps 2:9). Indeed, several of the Church fathers saw this passage as a reference to Mary, the Mother of our Savior, including St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine. At the same time, many of the Fathers saw the "woman" as a symbol of Israel, and the Church, the New Israel. There are certainly indications that this is also what the woman symbolizes here (e.g., she has a crown of 12 stars on her head, symbolizing the 12 tribes of Israel, and the 12 apostles). So which interpretation is correct? Both are correct! _

In the end we all accept that the Scriptures do reveal that bodily resurrection and assumption do happen, by the power of God, to some individuals, right?  So the Assumption in and of itself is not "anti-Biblical".
If the assumption of a human being is not "anti-Biblical", then what is the objection from the Fundamentalist point of view?


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> I will have to second ZGuy about you.  I’ve not met you in person but feel you are objective and do not come across as arrogant or hateful.  And you’re confident in your convictions; which to the pre-disposed can come across as arrogant.  For them I say pull of your ideological blinders.
> 
> I like to think I have been fair and objective in my questions and concerns about all denominations; but I tend to ask more about the RCC because I understand it the least.  And who better to ask about these things than people who practice it.
> 
> In the end, we all still have the same God and same Jesus.  We believers are brothers and sister and should behave accordingly.  I’m reading a lot of discontent between believers simply because we practice things differently.  Can’t we discuss and question without being belligerent and judgmental?



I do enjoy the discussions and challenges that come from you.  You are firm in your convictions, too, but also humble (you don't behave like a know-it-all), and charitable (assuming the best intentions from others).
I'll bet the love-in we're having has all the atheists in an utter fit!  They love to see us all bickering!


----------



## Zguy28

libby said:


> The fact is, we (Catholics) cannot "prove" the Assumption of Mary from Scripture; what we do believe we have is plenty of evidence.
> 
> I'm not going t o try to improve on Dr. Scott Hahn,
> _"In his recent book Hail Holy Queen, Prof. Hahn shows conclusively that the story of the visitation of Mary to her cousin Elizabeth in St. Luke's gospel, chapter one, bears numerous and remarkable similarities to the account in the Old Testament of King David bringing the Ark of the Covenant up to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6. The similarities are too many to be accidental: St. Luke means to tell us, in his own characteristic way, that Mary herself is the new Ark of the Covenant. Just as the Ark in ancient Israel contained the tables of the Law, and some of the manna-bread from heaven — signs of the Old Covenant — so Mary's womb contained the sign of the promise of the New Covenant and the true Bread of Life: Jesus our Savior Himself. Thus, it was already believed by the apostolic Church that Mary was the new Ark of the Covenant.
> 
> Now the old Ark of the Covenant had been lost for many centuries, and none of the Jews knew where it could be found (indeed, it remains missing to this very day). With that in mind, look what we find at the end of chapter 11 of the Book of Revelation:
> 
> 
> 
> Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of His covenant was seen within His temple, and there were flashes of lightening, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake and heavy hail.
> 
> 
> Wow, what an audio-visual spectacular! The Ark had been found! But look what the Revelation tells us next (and remember: the chapter and verse divisions of the Bible are not part of the original texts: they were inserted centuries later by monks to help us locate Scripture verses more easily, so the following sentence from the start of chapter 12 came directly after the one at the end of chapter 11 in the original manuscripts):
> 
> 
> 
> And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child. ... he brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron.
> 
> 
> Clearly, what St. John was shown in his vision, recorded here in the Book of Revelation, is that the Ark of the Covenant is now in heaven as a "woman clothed with the sun" whose child is the Messiah (who will rule with a "rod of iron," cf. Ps 2:9). Indeed, several of the Church fathers saw this passage as a reference to Mary, the Mother of our Savior, including St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine. At the same time, many of the Fathers saw the "woman" as a symbol of Israel, and the Church, the New Israel. There are certainly indications that this is also what the woman symbolizes here (e.g., she has a crown of 12 stars on her head, symbolizing the 12 tribes of Israel, and the 12 apostles). So which interpretation is correct? Both are correct! _
> 
> In the end we all accept that the Scriptures do reveal that bodily resurrection and assumption do happen, by the power of God, to some individuals, right?  So the Assumption in and of itself is not "anti-Biblical".
> If the assumption of a human being is not "anti-Biblical", then what is the objection from the Fundamentalist point of view?



An interesting point of view and one I have not hear before. However, while I see what the author is saying, I just don't see enough evidence to make that assumption. (No pun intended) It seems like a lot of speculation.


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> An interesting point of view and one I have not hear before. However, while I see what the author is saying, I just don't see enough evidence to make that assumption. (No pun intended) It seems like a lot of speculation.



I think of it as a kind of "connect the dots".  The final product is the big picture of God's family as He wants it to be.


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> An interesting point of view and one I have not hear before. However, while I see what the author is saying, I just don't see enough evidence to make that assumption. (No pun intended) It seems like a lot of speculation.



I think "evidence" is pretty much all the Bible gives us on myriad topics.  As has been said so many times before, if we had "proof", then no faith would be required.
It is also helpful in understanding the Assumption, to understand the other Marian doctrines, like the Immaculate Conception.  I'm sorry to repeat the same thing over and over, but I just can't say it enough.  The IC is not about Mary, it's about Jesus.  It's about the hypostatic union, and God being unable to do something that is not in His nature.  He could not become a man with a fallen flesh.  He did take His Flesh from His mother, I think we all agree with that.  He shared her DNA, and it makes perfect sense that He would preserve the flesh of the one from whom He would be made Incarnate.
Otherwise, it is not a hypostatic union, it seems to me.  It would be Mary as a petri dish, and I don't think any of us want to reduce the miraculous birth to that.


----------



## baydoll

Thank you libby for your comment. There's a lot to respond to so I will go through each point seperately. 

First point:



> St. Luke means to tell us, in his own characteristic way, that Mary herself is the new Ark of the Covenant. Just as the Ark in ancient Israel contained the tables of the Law, and some of the manna-bread from heaven — signs of the Old Covenant — so Mary's womb contained the sign of the promise of the New Covenant and the true Bread of Life: Jesus our Savior Himself. Thus, it was already believed by the apostolic Church that Mary was the new Ark of the Covenant.




Where in Luke does it tell us that Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant? And the name of all these people in the apostolic Church (the NT to be exact) that believed and taught Mary was the new Ark of the Covenant were.....?

The Bible explains how JESUS not Mary is typified by the Ark of the Covenant and "by all of the types of the Old Covenant (Colossians 2:17), and that we don’t need a “new” Ark under the New Covenant, as the Roman Catholics believe (see Jeremiah 3:16-17 –> Jerusalem is the Throne of God, and not Mary)."

 So here we are with another excellent example in which Roman Catholics replace Jesus with Mary, thus making Mary greater than God. 

The Tabernacle is the representation of the worship of God, and Mary is a human who should not have any place in that worship.

I got this from a blog, which explains how wrong this teaching is: 



> Indeed, the Ark of the Covenant was placed at the center of Jewish worship, behind the veil, in the Holy of Holies… Thus, when they compare Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, Roman Catholics place her at the center of worship…
> 
> Indeed, we have seen that the Ark of the Covenant was placed behind the veil, in the Holy of Holies, in the place of worship; so Roman Catholics make Mary the object of worship…
> 
> The high priest under the Old Covenant had to enter that Holy of Holies with the blood of sacrifices, a clear symbol of true worship; so by placing Mary behind that veil, Roman Catholics make her the object of worship… By making Mary the true Ark of the Covenant which is not of this creation (see Hebrews 9:11 and the explanation above), Roman Catholics make Mary a goddess who is not a creature (who is not of this creation)!!
> 
> In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant was the place where God revealed His Will to the children of Israel (as the tables of the Covenant were in that Ark – cf. Judges 20:27) as a type of the incarnated Son who alone revealed the Father to us (cf. John 1:18). So when Roman Catholics make Mary the Ark of the Covenant, they say that Mary revealed to us God, and not the incarnated Son…
> 
> In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant led the children of Israel in the way of God, taking them to the place of rest (cf. passages like Numbers 10:33, Joshua 3:3, Joshua 3:11), and that was a type of the Way to the Father who is Jesus Christ (cf. John 14:6). By making Mary the Ark of the Covenant, Roman Catholics are making Mary our leader to God, instead of Jesus (cf. Hebrews 12:2)…
> 
> Many other dangerous implications result from this false teaching that makes Mary the Ark of the Covenant. By this teaching, Roman Catholics replace Jesus with Mary, as is their habit… And they still tell us that they don’t worship Mary…



I have many more questions to ask you about this *teaching* but I'm headed out for the day.  I hope to be back later to respond to the rest of your post. 

Have a great day, everybody! : )

Edited to make post more readable.


----------



## Zguy28

It should be noted that of the Marian theologies of the RCC, the Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix doctrines are not official dogma of the RCC.

The currently accepted dogmas are:

Perpetual virginity 	
Mother of God
Immaculate Conception
Assumption into heaven

Roman Catholic Mariology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are those who teach the other two erroneous doctrines, including cardinals and bishops, but it is not official doctrine of the RCC.


----------



## Starman3000m

Zguy28 said:


> It should be noted that of the Marian theologies of the RCC, the Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix doctrines are not official dogma of the RCC.
> 
> The currently accepted dogmas are:
> 
> Perpetual virginity
> Mother of God
> Immaculate Conception
> Assumption into heaven
> 
> Roman Catholic Mariology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> There are those who teach the other two erroneous doctrines, including cardinals and bishops, but it is not official doctrine of the RCC.



OK - What then are your personal thoughts on the currently accepted dogmas? Biblical or not Biblical according to New Testament teachings.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## onel0126

Zguy28 said:


> An interesting point of view and one I have not hear before. However, while I see what the author is saying, I just don't see enough evidence to make that assumption. (No pun intended) It seems like a lot of speculation.



This is an incredible book.  All Catholics should read it.  All Protestants should read it, it won't change your mind most likely, but I promise it will make the whole issue clearer as well as Biblical.


----------



## Zguy28

Starman3000m said:


> OK - What then are your personal thoughts on the currently accepted dogmas? Biblical or not Biblical according to New Testament teachings.
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*


I disagree with them wholeheartedly. I don't think they are evidenced by the Scriptures at all, and I feel that by saying that the Scriptures can only be interpreted within the framework of the Roman Catholic Church, that it destroys the inherent authority of the bible and places authority solely in the hands of traditions of men, which is very dangerous. It's the same thing the Jews did in the First Century, and for which Jesus rebuked them very harshly in Matthew. 


But isn't that what you would expect from a Southern Baptist deacon?  

Here is an article from John MacArthur that I wholeheartedly agree with:

Sola Scriptura! A Reformed Theology Resource

Now, my point with that post was merely to point out that while many Roman Catholics do believe in these Marian notions, those two are not actually dogma and that a better avenue might be to refute the official one's first.


----------



## Starman3000m

Zguy28 said:


> ... Now, my point with that post was merely to point out that while many Roman Catholics do believe in these Marian notions, those two are not actually dogma and that a better avenue might be to refute the official one's first.



Thanks for the reference info. 

It still turns out that papal edicts and the Catechism of the RCC speaks for itself in regard to dogma and Marian teachings:



> “The leader of the Roman Catholic organization, the pope, has claimed that he not only is he the leader of the Roman Catholics but all of Christianity. He also claims that entrance into Heaven is dependant on submission to his authority.”
> 
> "We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff. Bull Unum Sanctum, Pope Boniface VIII, 1302.
> 
> UNAM SANCTAM
> 
> http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML Pages/VanNattan_hypocrite_liar.htm#TOC1_9




and the 1950 papal decree, ex-Cathedra, that all Catholics are required to believe in the teaching that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven.



> On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII, exercising papal infallibility, declared in "Munificentissimus Deus" that it is a dogma of the Church "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." As a dogma, the Assumption is a required belief of all Catholics; anyone who publicly dissents from the dogma, Pope Pius declared, "has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
> Assumption of Mary - August 15 - Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary





> *I. MARY'S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH  *966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."506 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
> 
> 969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."510
> 
> IN BRIEF
> 
> 973 By pronouncing her "fiat" at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is Savior and head of the Mystical Body.
> 974 The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son's Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of his Body.
> 975 "We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ" (Paul VI, CPG # 15).
> Source:  http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm




*Conclusion:*Either Mary was assumed into Heaven and resides there as "Queen of Heaven," and assists Jesus with redemption of souls, OR she does not.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## onel0126

Starman3000m said:


> ]Either Mary was assumed into Heaven and resides there as "Queen of Heaven," .........



One thing is for sure--we will both find out one day, and in the long run, (sit down for this one) it might not matter!


----------



## Bird Dog

I think Starman's rants about Mary are getting a little Freudian rather than spiritual.


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> I think Starman's rants about Mary are getting a little Freudian rather than spiritual.



So you believe as well that the RCC Jesus is inadequate enough in the Salvation process and shares Heaven with Mary as a co-Redeemer, Mediatrix?

Sorry, Bird Dog, but, whether you agree or not, this is a serious theological matter (not a Freudian concept) that determines whom and what you believe in regard to your salvation; The Vatican teachings or the teachings of The New Testament.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> One thing is for sure--we will both find out one day, and in the long run, (sit down for this one) it might not matter!



OK - but if it turns out that it really does matter, *eternity is a long time to have been wrong.*

*There Is Only One Truth.*


----------



## Bird Dog

Starman3000m said:


> So you believe as well that the RCC Jesus is inadequate enough in the Salvation process and shares Heaven with Mary as a co-Redeemer, Mediatrix?
> 
> Sorry, Bird Dog, but, whether you agree or not, this is a serious theological matter (not a Freudian concept) that determines whom and what you believe in regard to your salvation; The Vatican teachings or the teachings of The New Testament.
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



There is only one Jesus, when will you understand that. He died for us all so sins may be forgiven. 
Even the hate you spew, you are forgiven.

There are many other souls out there that you can try to save than the followers of the Roman Catholic Church. We believe that Jesus Christ is our saviour not Starmann3000 you keep trying to save our souls you are acting like a false prophet and when you boil it all down to the simplest common denominator that's it. Those who believe are saved.


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> There is only one Jesus, when will you understand that. He died for us all so sins may be forgiven.
> Even the hate you spew, you are forgiven.
> 
> There are many other souls out there that you can try to save than the followers of the Roman Catholic Church. We believe that Jesus Christ is our saviour not Starmann3000 you keep trying to save our souls you are acting like a false prophet and when you boil it all down to the simplest common denominator that's it. Those who believe are saved.



Yes, there is Only One Jesus. Yes, Salvation is by the Grace of God to a repentant sinner and through faith in the Atoning Blood of Christ alone. From that point on one becomes a born-again Child of God living under the guidance of God's Holy Spirit.

The Jesus of the New Testament does not have His Mother assisting Him in the Redemption process of saving souls;

The Jesus of the New Testament does not grant partial salvation in the here and now whereupon a soul is then sent to a place called purgatory for further cleansing prior to being able to enter into Heaven;

The Jesus of the New Testament is the Only One who is able to grant forgiveness for the sins of mankind and this has not been delegated to others (priests) for their assistance in proclaiming one's sins forgiven;

The Jesus of the New Testament does not manifest His literal flesh and literal Blood during Communion; this is only a symbolic remembrance of Him and not a literal manifestation that is ingested.

The choice is whether you believe in the Jesus of the New Testament accounts or the "Jesus" of the RCC whose Atoning Blood is not adequate enough to assure your salvation in the here and now and who needs assistance from Mary in the Redemption process.

There is the difference Bird Dog.  Which Jesus do you believe in?


----------



## Bird Dog

Starman3000m said:


> Yes, there is Only One Jesus. Yes, Salvation is by the Grace of God to a repentant sinner and through faith in the Atoning Blood of Christ alone. From that point on one becomes a born-again Child of God living under the guidance of God's Holy Spirit.
> 
> The Jesus of the New Testament does not have His Mother assisting Him in the Redemption process of saving souls;
> 
> The Jesus of the New Testament does not grant partial salvation in the here and now whereupon a soul is then sent to a place called purgatory for further cleansing prior to being able to enter into Heaven;
> 
> The Jesus of the New Testament is the Only One who is able to grant forgiveness for the sins of mankind and this has not been delegated to others (priests) for their assistance in proclaiming one's sins forgiven;
> 
> The Jesus of the New Testament does not manifest His literal flesh and literal Blood during Communion; this is only a symbolic remembrance of Him and not a literal manifestation that is ingested.
> 
> The choice is whether you believe in the Jesus of the New Testament accounts or the "Jesus" of the RCC whose Atoning Blood is not adequate enough to assure your salvation in the here and now and who needs assistance from Mary in the Redemption process.
> 
> There is the difference Bird Dog.  Which Jesus do you believe in?



I do not believe in anything preached by false prophets. After reading your rants and comdemnations of my religion I believe you to be a false prophet, preaching hatred and condemnations. You say our Popes are bad, you make them look like saints. You make Mary out to be a prostitute who stole heaven rather than the Mother of Jesus. You condemn people to hell just because they do not believe exactly as you.
You are a false prophet and no better than any Islamafascits. 
May the God of Abraham bless you and may Jesus forgive you your sins.


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> I do not believe in anything preached by false prophets. After reading your rants and comdemnations of my religion I believe you to be a false prophet, preaching hatred and condemnations. You say our Popes are bad, you make them look like saints. You make Mary out to be a prostitute who stole heaven rather than the Mother of Jesus. You condemn people to hell just because they do not believe exactly as you.
> You are a false prophet and no better than any Islamafascits.
> May the God of Abraham bless you and may Jesus forgive you your sins.



You have more faith in your "religion" than you do in the True God of Salvation.
You are in my prayers Bird Dog.


----------



## Zguy28

Bird Dog said:


> I do not believe in anything preached by false prophets.


As well you shouldn't.



> After reading your rants and comdemnations of my religion I believe you to be a false prophet, preaching hatred and condemnations. You say our Popes are bad, you make them look like saints.


 All of us are "bad" and require the grace of God to even repent. Totally depraved we are when we are without grace.



> You make Mary out to be a prostitute who stole heaven rather than the Mother of Jesus.


Mary is a very blessed woman. She didn't steal heaven or any other thing. It's people who believe she is more than a person that make her out to be more than she is.


> You condemn people to hell just because they do not believe exactly as you.


I personally believe there will be many Roman Catholics in heaven, many Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. I believe many Baptists will be shocked that we are not the only one's there! 


> You are a false prophet and no better than any Islamafascits.
> May the God of Abraham bless you and may Jesus forgive you your sins.


You just took whatever may be wrong with Starman's posts and kicked it up about 13 notches. Way to go.


----------



## foodcritic

Bird Dog said:


> There is only one Jesus, when will you understand that. He died for us all so sins may be forgiven.
> *Even the hate you spew, you are forgiven.*
> 
> There are many other souls out there that you can try to save than the followers of the Roman Catholic Church. We believe that Jesus Christ is our saviour not Starmann3000 you keep trying to save our souls you are acting like a false prophet and when you boil it all down to the simplest common denominator that's it. Those who believe are saved.



What has SM said that is "hate"?  SM certainly is not a savior (as he said he was?).  Saving souls...or rather preaching the Gospel should be the goal of every Christian.

False prophet?  What has he said that was prophetic?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Now the old Ark of the Covenant had been lost for many centuries, and none of the Jews knew where it could be found (indeed, it remains missing to this very day). With that in mind, look what we find at the end of chapter 11 of the Book of Revelation:
> 
> 
> 
> Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of His covenant was seen within His temple, and there were flashes of lightening, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake and heavy hail.
> 
> 
> Wow, what an audio-visual spectacular! The Ark had been found! But look what the Revelation tells us next (and remember: the chapter and verse divisions of the Bible are not part of the original texts: they were inserted centuries later by monks to help us locate Scripture verses more easily, so the following sentence from the start of chapter 12 came directly after the one at the end of chapter 11 in the original manuscripts):
> 
> 
> 
> And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child. ... he brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron.
> 
> 
> Clearly, what St. John was shown in his vision, recorded here in the Book of Revelation, is that the Ark of the Covenant is now in heaven as a "woman clothed with the sun" whose child is the Messiah (who will rule with a "rod of iron," cf. Ps 2:9). Indeed, several of the Church fathers saw this passage as a reference to Mary, the Mother of our Savior, including St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine. At the same time, many of the Fathers saw the "woman" as a symbol of Israel, and the Church, the New Israel. There are certainly indications that this is also what the woman symbolizes here (e.g., she has a crown of 12 stars on her head, symbolizing the 12 tribes of Israel, and the 12 apostles). So which interpretation is correct? Both are correct! [/I]




Sorry for the delay in getting back to this post but I was under the weather for the past few days. 

Libby that sounds really nice and all but there are alot of holes in Hahn's logic. For example: 

1) Rome teaches Mary did not suffer birth pangs with Jesus..

2) Hahn (and Rome) teaches that Mary was the woman of Revelation 12.

BUT wait a minute!!

3) the woman in Revelation 12 is SUFFERING birth pangs!

 so consequently...

4) Hahn's (as well as Rome's) theology is self-contradictory.


----------



## baydoll

Bird Dog said:


> There is only one Jesus, when will you understand that. He died for us all so sins may be forgiven.
> Even the hate you spew, you are forgiven.
> 
> There are many other souls out there that you can try to save than the followers of the Roman Catholic Church. We believe that Jesus Christ is our saviour not Starmann3000 you keep trying to save our souls you are acting like a false prophet and when you boil it all down to the simplest common denominator that's it. *Those who believe are saved*.



And is that it? All one has to do is believe and nothing else added? I believe and I am not Catholic so am I saved?

So if you were to die right this very second, would you go directly to Heaven?


----------



## Bird Dog

baydoll said:


> And is that it? All one has to do is believe and nothing else added? I believe and I am not Catholic so am I saved?
> 
> So if you were to die right this very second, would you go directly to Heaven?



You asked four questions in that post.

My answer to each is the same.

I believe!


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Sorry for the delay in getting back to this post but I was under the weather for the past few days.
> 
> Libby that sounds really nice and all but there are alot of holes in Hahn's logic. For example:
> 
> 1) Rome teaches Mary did not suffer birth pangs with Jesus..
> 
> 2) Hahn (and Rome) teaches that Mary was the woman of Revelation 12.
> 
> BUT wait a minute!!
> 
> 3) the woman in Revelation 12 is SUFFERING birth pangs!
> 
> so consequently...
> 
> 4) Hahn's (as well as Rome's) theology is self-contradictory.



If Psy or Zguy wants these points addressed, just let me know.  Otherwise, I'm going to stay on the topics they address.


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> Sorry for the delay in getting back to this post but I was under the weather for the past few days.
> 
> Libby that sounds really nice and all but there are alot of holes in Hahn's logic. For example:
> 
> 1) Rome teaches Mary did not suffer birth pangs with Jesus..
> 
> 2) Hahn (and Rome) teaches that Mary was the woman of Revelation 12.
> 
> BUT wait a minute!!
> 
> 3) the woman in Revelation 12 is SUFFERING birth pangs!
> 
> so consequently...
> 
> 4) Hahn's (as well as Rome's) theology is self-contradictory.



Bay--Do you really want to get into scriptural contradiction (in the literal since)--if so, we could be here awhile....


----------



## baydoll

Bird Dog said:


> You asked four questions in that post.
> 
> My answer to each is the same.
> 
> I believe!



you believe....what?


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> Bay--Do you really want to get into scriptural contradiction (in the literal since)--if so, we could be here awhile....



Actually it would be really nice if someone (a Catholic, preferably, since it is a Catholic topic) would answer what I addressed instead of taking the usual ad hominem pot shots at me and/or diverting wildly off-topic thank you muchly and kindly.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> If Psy or Zguy wants these points addressed, just let me know.  Otherwise, I'm going to stay on the topics they address.



I hate to break it to you dear but YOU were the one who bought up Mary as the Woman in Revelation 12 in the first place. I'm just bringing up all the holes in that logic.


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> If Psy or Zguy wants these points addressed, just let me know.  Otherwise, I'm going to stay on the topics they address.



Why are you bringing me into this?


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> Why are you bringing me into this?



Only because I wouldn't want anyone to think that I _couldn't_ answer the question that was posed.
As I said before, the two of you (you and Zguy) are treating me and my faith with respect, so I'm happy to chat.  Baydoll, not so much.  I seem to recall that she and I went at it many months ago, too.
What's that saying about "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."?
I'm just not engaging with all forumites, but not for a lack on an answer.
That's the long-winded reason for bringing you into it.


----------



## Starman3000m

Marian devotions - derived from ancient paganism?

Article excerpt:



> ISIS = VIRGIN MARY
> 
> Since modern pagans have absolutely no trouble seeing the same paganism in the Catholic Church that they are practicing, let us allow a modern pagan to shed additional light on the tradition upon which the Catholic Virgin Mary is based:
> 
> "At first, the idea of equating Isis, an ancient Egyptian deity, with Mary, the the holy Virgin of Christianity and the mother of Jesus, may seem strange and to many Christians even blasphemous. However, many Pagans and Witches, particularly those who were raised as Catholics, now regard Mary as one of the numerous forms of the Goddess ... Isis is often known as Isis Myrionymos which roughly translates as 'Isis of the Thousand (or Myriad) names'. Her attributes encompass those of all other Goddesses and it is now common for encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Brittannica and the on-line Encyclopedia Mythica to describe Isis as being 'identified with the Virgin Mary' ... From the Pagan point of view, Mary is one of the numerous names of the Goddess, as is Isis, and they are both manifestations of Her many forms. Both are in essence the same Goddess and embody the aspect of the divine Mother. In a way, to the Christians who destroyed Her temples and killed her devotees, Isis lives on as Mary." ["The Virgin Mary - Isis of the Third Millennium?", Aurilus Creative Paganism]
> 
> Once again, a person skilled in Paganism has absolutely no trouble identifying the Virgin Mary with so many other goddesses of the Ancient Pagan world! Like my Daddy used to say, "It takes one to know one"! Since the Virgin Mary is a regurgitation of the ancient of the Egyptian Goddess, Isis, let us take some time to learn more about Isis. You will once again find a direct tie-in to Sun Worship!
> 
> * "One of Isis' many epithets is Theotokos or Mother of God (Horus)' which is one of the most popular of titles attributed to Mary." [Ibid.; Emphasis added]
> In case you do not believe the Virgin Mary is called the "Mother of God", listen now to the Catholic Catechism.
> "The Virgin Mary is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God ... Mart, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church." ["Catechism of the Catholic Church", Liguori Publications, Imprimi Potest, + Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 963, p. 251; Emphasis added].
> * "Mary is also known as Stella Maris or 'Star of the Sea' while Isis was given a similar title of Pelagia meaning 'of the ocean'." [Aurilus, Ibid.; Emphasis added]
> 
> Again, see the identical meaning given to Mary in Catholicism:
> "The Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, the mother of God ... Here a word has to be added concerning the explanation stella maris, star of the sea. It is more popular than any other interpretation of the name Mary..." ["The Name of Mary", New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Name of Mary Emphasis added]
> * "Another title Mary shares with Isis is 'Queen of Heaven' (also a title of lshtar/lnanna) which for Isis reflects Her Goddess status as the ruler of all that is while for Mary it represents her assumption and coronation in Heaven as spouse of the Holy Spirit." [Aurilus, Ibid.; Emphasis added]
> 
> Now, listen to Catholicism:
> 
> "Prayer to Mary, Queen of Heaven -- Queen of heaven, rejoice. Alleluia. The Son whom you were privileged to bear, Alleluia, has risen as he said, Alleluia. Pray to God for us, Alleluia." ["Blessed Virgin Mary", Catholic Forum, http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintbvm.htm; Emphasis added]
> 
> *God's condemnation of the Queen of Heaven: *"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." [Jer 7:18]
> 
> "But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. 18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine." [Jer 44:17-18]
> 
> "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows." [ Jer 44:25]
> One of the major reasons God utterly destroyed Israel during the time of the Major Prophets was because they worshipped the "Queen of Heaven". Let us allow a Bible Dictionary to shed some more light on this Satanic "Queen of Heaven".
> 
> "QUEEN OF HEAVEN (Hebrew [melekheth ha-shamayim], although there is another reading, Hebrew [mele'kheth], "worship" or "goddess") ... Occurs only in two passages: Jer 7:18; Jer 44:17-19, 25, where the prophet denounces the wrath of God upon the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem who have given themselves up to the worship of the host of heaven ... But that the people of Judah in the days before the exile had given themselves over to the worst and vilest forms of heathen worship and incurred the grievous displeasure of Yahweh is made clear by the denunciation of the worship of the queen of heaven by Jeremiah.' —International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
> Yes, just as this Bible Encyclopedia stated, the worship of the Queen of Heaven is tied in to the worship of the "host of heaven", most specifically, Sun Worship.
> 
> Now, let us return to the pagan site from which we have already quoted:
> "Isis' Temples, called Iseums, were destroyed or else converted to Christianity as the new religion traveled the length and breadth of the Empire. The icons of Isis and Horus were renamed as the Madonna and Her child. lndeed, in many of the earliest carvings, it is impossible to tell which pair, they depict. The most familiar of all statues that have survived shows Isis holding Her son Horus to Her breast and it is this classic pose which is repeated in Christianity, but Isis and Horus are replaced by Mary and the infant Jesus. Indeed, in Orthodox and Catholic icons across the world, Mary is shown holding Jesus in Her arms, the universal sign of motherhood." [Aurilus, Ibid.]
> 
> ROME'S VENERATION OF THE VIRGIN MARY IS SIMPLY A CONTINUATION OF THE WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN MOTHER - DIVINE CHILD IN THE PAGAN SUN GOD TRADITION



*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## onel0126

Starman3000m said:


> Marian devotions - derived from ancient paganism?
> 
> Article excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



This cut and paste was worthy of a post?  From that whackadoo website?  Seriously?  Did you buy a 2012 Mayan Doomsday book while you were browsing that site?  You have and can do better than that.  I saw the term New World Order and clicked off of that site as soon as I could before my laptop got cooties!


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> This cut and paste was worthy of a post?  From that whackadoo website?  Seriously?  Did you buy a 2012 Mayan Doomsday book while you were browsing that site?  You have and can do better than that.  I saw the term New World Order and clicked off of that site as soon as I could before my laptop got cooties!



Yes - this "cut and paste" represents researched information exposing the errors of the Vatican (Rome) and its pagan traditions.  

Closing your laptop at the first sign of something you disagree with ( or believe to be phony) is a sign of denial rather than skepticism.  I challenge you take another look and refute anything on that site that you see is incorrect.

*Denial of Truth when Truth is presented* will imprison you to a self-imposed deception by fearing that you could be wrong. Again, I challenge you to read through the information.

*There Is Only One Truth.*


----------



## libby

Yeah, if your faith stands on the lack of similarities to pagan gods, you are finished with Christianity.

Investigating the Similarities between Jesus and Pagan Figures

Parallels between the Christian gospels and Pagan mythology


----------



## Mikeru

I bet Starman also believes everything he hears on Glenn Beck too!


----------



## Zguy28

Mikeru said:


> I bet Starman also believes everything he hears on Glenn Beck too!


I hope not. Beck is like watching a train wreck.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Yeah, if your faith stands on the lack of similarities to pagan gods, you are finished with Christianity.
> 
> Investigating the Similarities between Jesus and Pagan Figures
> 
> Parallels between the Christian gospels and Pagan mythology



The truth, libby, is that in spite of Satan's attempts to deceive mankind through counterfeit teachings and false religions *There Is Only One Truth.*

The only reference to a *Queen of Heaven* was in the Old Testament and it referred to goddess worship that provoked God (Yahweh) to anger.  The New Testament also makes a reference to worship of a pagan goddess that was going on during the time of Jesus.  There is no Biblical account that proves the Vatican's teachings about Mary at all.  On the contrary, the Holy Bible disproves such teachings:



> *Old Testament references to "queen of heaven" being pagan belief:*
> 
> The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to *the queen of heaven*, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger (Jeremiah 7:18)
> 
> But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto *the queen of heaven*, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.
> But since we left off to burn incense to *the queen of heaven*, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. And when we burned incense to *the queen of heaven*, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men? (Jeremiah 44:17-19)
> 
> Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to *the queen of heaven*, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows. (Jeremiah 44:25)
> 
> *New Testament: Acts Chapter 19:*
> 
> 24: For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen;
> 25: Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.
> 26: Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:
> 27: So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.
> 28: And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
> 29: And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre.
> 30: And when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not.
> 31: And certain of the chief of Asia, which were his friends, sent unto him, desiring him that he would not adventure himself into the theatre.
> 32: Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.
> 33: And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made his defence unto the people.
> 34: But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> The truth, libby, is that in spite of Satan's attempts to deceive mankind through counterfeit teachings and false religions *There Is Only One Truth.*
> 
> The only reference to a *Queen of Heaven* was in the Old Testament and it referred to goddess worship that provoked God (Yahweh) to anger.  The New Testament also makes a reference to worship of a pagan goddess that was going on during the time of Jesus.  There is no Biblical account that proves the Vatican's teachings about Mary at all.  On the contrary, the Holy Bible disproves such teachings:



As usual, you fail to address the point(s) made.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> As usual, you fail to address the point(s) made.



libby, I have previously stated that Roman Catholicism is viewed by a vast majority of the world as being representative of "Christendom" when in reality the RCC teaches a different Jesus than the Biblical account of our Lord and Saviour. One of the links you cited regarding the similarities between "Christianity" and paganism is a good example in that the references made about Christianity are specifically about the teachings of Roman Catholicism.

*The Holy Bible does not support any of the RCC teachings* regarding Peter being the first "pope" ; Successive Papal authority as Vicar of Christ; Mary being assumed up to Heaven where she reigns as "Queen of Heaven," Mediatrix and co-Redeemer who helps Jesus in allowing souls in to Heaven; Patron Saints that can be prayed to for guidance (Spirit guides) ; priests being able to pronounce "forgiveness of sins" nor the teaching of purgatory where a soul is further cleansed of sins prior to being able to enter into Heaven.

The Vatican is in grave error with the teachings cited above just as it is in grave danger when its Catechism claims that Muslims and "Christians" worship the same God.



> *Catholicism and Muslims*841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM



Al'lah is *NOT* Yahweh

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## thatguy

libby said:


> As usual, you fail to address the point(s) made.



you cant expect starman to hold his own interpretation to the same standards that he is holding yours to. And no matter what points you try to make he will only continue to attack all your religion. you know, just like his jesus would do.

we all know that when starman celebrates christmas in december that he does it as directed by god, but when you do it is simply a tie to paganism


----------



## Starman3000m

thatguy said:


> you cant expect starman to hold his own interpretation to the same standards that he is holding yours to. And no matter what points you try to make he will only continue to attack all your religion. you know, just like his jesus would do.
> 
> we all know that when starman celebrates christmas in december that he does it as directed by god, but when you do it is simply a tie to paganism



*AND:* If you say you don't believe in Jesus at all, then aren't you also saying that libby's faith in the "RCC Jesus" is wrong just as much as you claim that I am wrong?

It's obvious that you don't believe in the New Testament account of Jesus, but, as I have tried to point out, there are many variations of who "Jesus" is but there can only be *One Truth!*

Which would you claim is the true Jesus?

*The RCC Jesus:* The one who sends souls to purgatory for further cleansing because his atoning blood was not sufficient enough to guarantee 100% cleansing and salvation in the here and now; rules in Heaven with his mother, Mary, as Mediatrix and co-Redeemer who assists him in allowing souls into heaven; gave his exclusive authority to Peter, as pope, which passes on to all subsequent successors as Vicars of Christ; allows sinful priests to pronounce the sins of people "forgiven," etc.

*The Orthodox Judaic Jesus:* A false prophet and blasphemer who was the illegitimate son of Mary; First-century followers of Jesus were persecuted and stoned to death.

*The Islamic Jesus (Isa'):* The one who is really a Muslim; was not the Son of God at all; was not really crucified but was assumed up to the Islamic paradise; the one who will return and condemn anyone who believed that Jesus was the Son of God; the one who will teach from the Qur'an and be second behind the Islamic saviour, al-Mahdi, at the end of days; etc.,

*The Mormon Jesus:* The one whose atoning blood also is not capable of completely forgiving one's sins; the spirit brother of Satan; the one who sends Mormons to one of three heavens, depending on how good they were on earth; The one who has many wives; etc.,

*The Jehovah's Witness Jesus:* The one who is not God but rather is the archangel, Michael; the one whose atoning blood is not good enough to save people; the one who really wasn't resurrected bodily but returned in spirit form in 1914, etc.,

also:



> *Then there’s the Jesus of the liberal denominations.* He’s a first century man who lived an exemplary life of such gentleness and grace that it was almost as if he was God. He’ll see that everyone who joins their denominations gets accepted into heaven whether they’re born again or not. Some proponents of liberal theology claim that he’ll also see that everyone who was sincere in whatever other religion they practiced will get to heaven too. For the most part, liberal denominations don’t believe in the literal fulfillment of End Time events.  For many, the 2nd Coming happened to each person when they first believed in Jesus.
> 
> *The New Age Jesus* is really one of the oldest. He originally appeared in first century Gnosticism. This Jesus was a man who like 40 other “ascended masters” holds the key to knowledge (gnosis) that when learned will bring about the next phase of human evolution, a spiritual growth that will finally make peace on earth possible. He didn’t die for our sins because there’s no need for us to be saved.
> 
> *The Real Jesus*
> 
> ...there is one more man named Jesus.  He is not a created being.  On the contrary He is our Creator. As Paul wrote in Colossians 1:16,  By him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He’s not an angel and he’s not a mere man, because He created both.  The archangel Michael might be the first created being, but if he is, Jesus is the one who created him.  And Lucifer may have many brothers, but if he does, Jesus created them all.
> 
> This is the Jesus of the Bible. He claimed to be God in the form of man (John 10:30 and 14:9). Men who knew Him agreed. Paul taught the Deity of Jesus in Colossians 1:15-16. So did John (John 1:1-3). The writer of the Book of Hebrews also agreed (Hebr 1:3) and included a quote from Psalm 45:6-7 that shows God Himself addressing Jesus as God (Hebr 1:8). And this is not just a New Testament idea.  In his prophecy of the Messiah’s birthplace, Micah said He was an eternal being whose goings forth were from days of eternity.  Literally from before time and perpetual. (Micah 5:2) He is the eternal God.
> 
> Here’s where your knowledge of Scripture becomes really important, because in order to be all the Bible claims, Jesus has to be both 100% man and 100% God. If He isn’t a man He couldn’t have been made like us in every way and suffered our temptations as Hebr. 2:17-18 claim; he couldn’t be our High Priest as Hebr. 4:14-15 assert; and he can’t be our redeemer because he wouldn’t be our next of kin as required by Lev. 25:47-48 and explained in Rom 5:18-19.  If He isn’t God He couldn’t be King David’s Lord (Matt 22:41-45) He couldn’t be sinless (Rom 3:20) and He couldn’t be our Savior (Mark 2:6-12 and 1 Ptr 1: 18-21).
> 
> *(What Cults teach)*
> Three things distinguish Christian cult beliefs from orthodox theology. The cults deny the doctrine of salvation by grace alone. You have to earn at least part of the salvation they offer. They also deny the notion of eternal punishment for sin. Everyone goes to some kind of Heaven. And most importantly, they deny the deity of Jesus.
> 
> They portray Him as a great man and role model; a great teacher, a prophet, even a social revolutionary, but certainly not God. In truth Jesus was all of that. But He was also much more. He was God in the form of man; the Father dwelling in the Son (Col 1:19).
> 
> To think of Jesus as anyone other than God is to reject the truth concerning Him revealed through out His Word, and to put yourself at risk of trusting in the wrong Jesus for your eternal destiny. The Jesus of the Bible is the only one...who is able to save you.    Selah 05-02-09
> 
> Jack Kelly



Yes, thatguy, there can only be *One Jesus* as True Lord and Saviour; the rest are all counterfeit saviours, and, *There Is Only One Truth.*

Jesus said:* I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. *(John 14:6)


----------



## thatguy

Starman3000m said:


> *AND:* If you say you don't believe in Jesus at all, then aren't you also saying that libby's faith in the "RCC Jesus" is wrong just as much as you claim that I am wrong?



and there is the crux of your biscuit.... *for you it is all about everyone else being wrong*. Its not your place to tell anyone that their choosen flavor of religion is wrong. And i haven't done that to you, I have only objected to your attacks on other religions and the hypocrisy with with you attack.


BTW, you choose not to address the pagan ties of your faith with the celebration of christmas. But i dont wonder why, at all


----------



## ItalianScallion

thatguy said:


> Its not your place to tell anyone that their choosen flavor of religion is wrong. And i haven't done that to you, I have only objected to your attacks on other religions and the hypocrisy with with you attack.
> BTW, you choose not to address the pagan ties of your faith with the celebration of christmas. But i dont wonder why, at all


You should thank your god that ignorance isn't painful or you'd be on meds for it 

Let's look at these items to refute your thinking:
It soitainly IS our "place to tell everyone that their chosen flavor of religion is or (might be) wrong" because Jesus Himself told us to. (Matthew 28)
18 Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, *and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.* And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age

Next: So Christmas has pagan roots? Just because YOU don't know it's origin, doesn't make your statement correct. Read on dude and then point out where there is paganism in Christmas! (btw, please don't just post this  to show that you have nothing to disprove this) Thanks! 

Christmas was purposely placed right about the time of the pagan holiday celebration (Dec 17-23) of Saturnalia the Roman god of seed planting and the winter solstice, to over ride the pagan worship of Saturnalia. Most people today don't even remember that now because Christmas has overridden it since it's inception @ 325AD. No one really knows when Jesus was born, so it is of little importance when the event is celebrated.

Christmas tree decorating originated in Germany with the practice of decorating a "Paradise" tree with apples symbolizing the tree of life in the Garden of Eden. (No paganism here guy)

Along with that, was a triangular shaped wooden shelf filled with small figurines and topped with a star shaped figure representing the star that the "wise men" followed. The tree & the shelf were later combined to form the tree with a star on top & the decorations on it. Candles were also used as lights for the trees. (no paganism here either guy)

The wise men of the Bible were educated men (in science & astrology) led by God to Jesus' home and were shown, in a dream, how to avoid King Herod so their gift giving was accepted by God Himself. (Matthew 2 v 9 & 12). Besides, Jesus condoned gift giving in Matthew 10 v 42.

Finally, of all the traditional Christmas songs ever written, one can only name a few that aren't about Jesus or mention His name or God. (no paganism seen yet)

So why would anyone make Christmas sound like it is pagan in origin? Although it wasn't, what does it really matter if it was? Many of us were pagan and then became Christians. The bottom line is that billions of people around the world in every culture are celebrating Christmas, the birth of Jesus, the Savior of the world; without any pagan practices.

Santa Clause was derived from the Dutch word Sinter Klaas which, in turn, was the name for a 4th century bishop from Turkey named Saint Nicholas. He was a man that regularly gave gifts to small children and was at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. where he supported the doctrine of the Trinity. (still searching for paganisms guy)

Until the 1800’s the image of St. Nicholas was a tall thin man wearing a bishop’s robe. Washington Irving offered a new image in 1809 that was expanded by Clement Clark Moore in his 1822 poem. Moore was a professor at the General Theological Seminary in NY. On Christmas Eve 1822, Moore was helping Jan, his grounds keeper, shovel snow. Jan was a chubby man with a white beard, twinkling eyes and rosy cheeks. That night Jan was driving Moore to the market to get a turkey and Moore got an idea. 

As the snow fell, Moore composed a poem. Later, one of his kids took it to school and read it to the class. The teacher was impressed by it and took it to the local newspaper (Troy Sentinel) that published it anonymously on December 23, 1823. It is believed that the red suit came from a German artist because the bishop’s robe was red...(maybe red is a pagan color)??

After a thorough scan of this article, no paganisms were found. You may reboot and continue on...


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> As usual, you fail to address the point(s) made.



And as usual, YOU failed to address all the points I made.


----------



## thatguy

ItalianScallion said:


> You should thank your god that ignorance isn't painful or you'd be on meds for it
> 
> 
> 
> *Christmas was purposely placed right about the time of the pagan holiday celebration (Dec 17-23) of Saturnalia the Roman god of seed planting and the winter solstice,* to over ride the pagan worship of Saturnalia. Most people today don't even remember that now because Christmas has overridden it since it's inception @ 325AD. No one really knows when Jesus was born, so it is of little importance when the event is celebrated.After a thorough scan of this article, no paganisms were found. You may reboot and continue on...



you cant be serious can you? Clearly the time of year that christmas is celebrated has ties to paganism, just like i said earlier.



			
				thatguy said:
			
		

> we all know that when starman celebrates christmas in december that he does it as directed by god, but when you do it is simply a tie to paganism



and i only brought it up in response to you and starman accusing catholics of paganistic rituals. But again, if you are doing it it has no ties, if someone else is, they are gwine to hell for paganism


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> And as usual, YOU failed to address all the points I made.



Not quite.  I offered to answer for anyone else.  You, on the other hand, I've not had good experiences with.


----------



## Zguy28

ItalianScallion said:


> You should thank your god that ignorance isn't painful or you'd be on meds for it


Waste of time. In my experience on here, trying to have rational and logical discussion with thatguy is like trying to hear the color blue.


----------



## thatguy

Zguy28 said:


> Waste of time. In my experience on here, trying to have rational and logical discussion with thatguy is like trying to hear the color blue.



if you dont like it, suck it, or better yet, just stay the #### out of it


----------



## foodcritic

thatguy said:


> if you dont like it, suck it, or better yet, just stay the #### out of it



Trolling.....trolling.....

Really? if you don't have anything to add AND you can't articulate yourself with out &^(&(((##^@(&*@^$_ the you should probably just troll in another room.  Just saying.


----------



## thatguy

foodcritic said:


> Trolling.....trolling.....
> 
> Really? if you don't have anything to add AND you can't articulate yourself with out &^(&(((##^@(&*@^$_ the you should probably just troll in another room.  Just saying.



coming from the forum homotroll that is rich


----------



## PsyOps

Amazing!


----------



## Zguy28

thatguy said:


> if you dont like it, suck it, or better yet, just stay the #### out of it


Sometimes the truth hurts.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice? 

What dog do you have in this hunt anyway?


----------



## thatguy

Zguy28 said:


> Sometimes the truth hurts.
> 
> Perhaps you should heed your own advice?
> 
> What dog do you have in this hunt anyway?



stop being retarded. you called me out with some nonsensical post, dont act surprised that I take exception to it.


----------



## foodcritic

thatguy said:


> stop being retarded. you called me out with some nonsensical post, dont act surprised that I take exception to it.



Are you the guy who goes to the AA meeting drunk, with drinks for everyone?


----------



## thatguy

foodcritic said:


> Are you the guy who goes to the AA meeting drunk, with drinks for everyone?



are you are the guy who goes to GLAD meetings carrying a case of lube


----------



## Radiant1

Wow, I didn't think this thread could degenerate more than it already had. I was wrong.


----------



## ItalianScallion

thatguy said:


> you cant be serious can you? Clearly the time of year that christmas is celebrated has ties to paganism, just like i said earlier.
> and i only brought it up in response to you and starman accusing catholics of paganistic rituals.


According to you then, if anyone goes to a gas station for gas, they're automatically pagan because they're supporting anti-Christian arabs, mexicans, etc? And ALL pagan holidays were in place before ALL the Christian ones? "you can't be serious can you"? 


Zguy28 said:


> Waste of time. In my experience on here, trying to have rational and logical discussion with thatguy is like trying to hear the color blue.


You're soo right but it flexes my spiritual muscles (not much though). TG isn't hard to contend with...


PsyOps said:


> Amazing!


but not amusing, right?


----------



## thatguy

ItalianScallion said:


> According to you then, if anyone goes to a gas station for gas, they're automatically pagan because they're supporting anti-Christian arabs, mexicans, etc? And ALL pagan holidays were in place before ALL the Christian ones? "you can't be serious can you"?



you clearly have a problem understanding english if that is what you got from the post you were replying to.

its no wonder you have to have your book selling internet prophets 'splain it all up to ya


----------



## Bird Dog

Thank God you all  do not believe in suicide bombing. You are so close to being Jihadist.

I think Starman would blow up Catholics before he would blowup atheists


----------



## ItalianScallion

thatguy said:


> you clearly have a problem understanding english if that is what you got from the post you were replying to.
> its no wonder you have to have your book selling internet prophets 'splain it all up to ya


I'm sorry; WHO has the comprehension problem?


----------



## PsyOps

Bird Dog said:


> Thank God you all  do not believe in suicide bombing. You are so close to being Jihadist.
> 
> I think Starman would blow up Catholics before he would blowup atheists



When all rational arguments fail, resort to accusing people you disagree with as being potential murderous butchers.  Really?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Not quite.  I offered to answer for anyone else.  You, on the other hand, I've not had good experiences with.



Wow...classy AND mature. 


The Apostle Paul said that we should always be ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within us. And this is to everyone regardless of WHO they are or what they say.

From the looks of things, neither you nor any of your catholic brethren seem up to being able to do that.

Instead, you dodge, you weave, you evade, you call names, ANYTHING but actually address the issues being discussed.  

Typical.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Wow...classy AND mature.
> 
> 
> The Apostle Paul said that we should always be ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within us. And this is to everyone regardless of WHO they are or what they say.
> 
> From the looks of things, neither you nor any of your catholic brethren seem up to being able to do that.
> 
> Instead, you dodge, you weave, you evade, you call names, ANYTHING but actually address the issues being discussed.
> 
> Typical.[/QUOTE
> 
> Call it what you will.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> baydoll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...classy AND mature.
> 
> 
> The Apostle Paul said that we should always be ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within us. And this is to everyone regardless of WHO they are or what they say.
> 
> From the looks of things, neither you nor any of your catholic brethren seem up to being able to do that.
> 
> Instead, you dodge, you weave, you evade, you call names, ANYTHING but actually address the issues being discussed.
> 
> Typical.[/QUOTE
> 
> Call it what you will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I just did.
Click to expand...


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> Wow...classy AND mature.
> 
> 
> Instead, you *dodge*, you weave, you *evade*, you call names, ANYTHING but actually address the issues being discussed.
> 
> Typical.



I'm glad you said that.....Now, speaking of dodging and evading, we're still waiting to hear the name of the church where you worship--asked 2 weeks ago.


----------



## toppick08

onel0126 said:


> I'm glad you said that.....Now, speaking of dodging and evading, we're still waiting to hear the name of the church where you worship--asked 2 weeks ago.



Probably one of them other Christian Churches.....


----------



## Zguy28

Bird Dog said:


> Thank God you all  do not believe in suicide bombing. You are so close to being Jihadist.
> 
> I think Starman would blow up Catholics before he would blowup atheists


Wow. That's pretty low. The last time I looked, Starman is not trying to legislate, coerce, or otherwise force you to accept his views. 

Make sure next time just to go for broke and compare somebody to Hitler when you don't like their message.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Alright then, folks! I think it is very clear to see the problems that arise from everyone not having the same standard to get their beliefs from. We cannot each have a different source of absolute truth. First, because there isn't more than one and second, if there was, we could all be right (and that can NEVER be). 

What troubles me the most is the extreme twisting of Bible verses that have come up in defense of certain denominational beliefs. (One in particular: Calling Mary the "Arc of the Covenant"??) That is some scary stuff right there! 

So why don't we all realize one truth here: No one is forced to believe something they don't want to, so why name call and get tribal or take it personally? When you resort to name calling, you've shown that you're out of rational answers and you've lost respect for/from others.


----------



## Bird Dog

If you and Starman could redirect your energies to people that really need spiritual
healing/redemption I would believe you have something to listen to. All you do is condemn other Christians. I see people every week that need God's redeeming grace and work hard to make changes. To say I am into pagan/idol/false Jesus, etc. Worshiper is no worse than saying you remind me of the Jihadist. I did not use the "Hitler" analogy.  The only religious people that condemn me to Hell for my beliefs  are the Evangelicals and the Muslims and that bothers me. If you cannot see that similarity you are not reading your own posts.


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> ...The only religious people that condemn me to Hell for my beliefs  are the Evangelicals and the Muslims and that bothers me. If you cannot see that similarity you are not reading your own posts.



*The difference is:* Evangelicals want you to know that Christ died to save you from hell and through faith in Him you go to Heaven; 

The Muslims want you to know that if they blow themselves up and kill you in the process they honestly believe they get to go to the Islamic heaven!


We want you to trust in the *New Testament Jesus*; We want you to have a place in Heaven; we want you to know the True Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour:



> John, Chapter 3:
> 
> 15: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
> 16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> 17: For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
> 18: *He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.*19: And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
> 20: For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.





> There is therefore now *no condemnation* to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1)


----------



## ItalianScallion

Bird Dog said:


> If you and Starman could redirect your energies to people that really need spiritual healing/redemption I would believe you have something to listen to. All you do is condemn other Christians. I see people every week that need God's redeeming grace and work hard to make changes. To say I am into pagan/idol/false Jesus, etc. Worshiper is no worse than saying you remind me of the Jihadist. I did not use the "Hitler" analogy.  The only religious people that condemn me to Hell for my beliefs  are the Evangelicals and the Muslims and that bothers me.


Bird Dog, you assume that all those others ARE Christians; we don't. Sure, we don't know their hearts so we can't judge them, but we see their posts and their words raise biblical "red" flags. Do you not care enough about someone's eternal destination that you'd assume everyone is saved who "says" they are?   What if Jesus did that? 

And you fail to realize that ANYONE who follows a "belief system" can still be Hell bound. You blindly assume that they are Christians (which, I think, is worse than what you accuse us of doing). Ever read Ezekiel 3? You should...

I gave you a personal account of my own life and how I thought I was Heaven bound....until the day dawned when I truly became saved. That was a very sobering day in my life (in more ways than one). A day that I'll never forget and will always be eternally grateful to God for.

What if you got on the "other side" and found out that you were wrong about your beliefs but I said nothing here on earth to challenge you? You'd probably hate me for not challenging you with the truth and I'd hate myself for it because God put you in my "path" for that very reason. I'd much rather challenge you and pi$$ you off than to not challenge you and catch "hell" from God for it. (Again, Ezekiel 3)

You don't see me or any of the other 4 or 5 true believers on here challenging each other's biblical beliefs or salvation here do you? They are: Starman, 2nd Amendment, Zguy, PsyOps, Baydoll... These folks have convinced me by their posts that their "essential" Christian beliefs are correct. 

Stop looking at us as hateful because we're not. You might even read the first 4 verses of 2 Timothy 4 and Titus 1 v 10 & 11 to see why we're soo concerned about people today. This is life and death and those lies that we speak against can be fatal ones, so do NOT take them lightly..


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> *The difference is:* Evangelicals want you to know that Christ died to save you from hell and through faith in Him you go to Heaven;
> 
> The Muslims want you to know that if they blow themselves up and kill you in the process they honestly believe they get to go to the Islamic heaven!
> 
> 
> We want you to trust in the *New Testament Jesus*; We want you to have a place in Heaven; we want you to know the True Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour:





You love to skip over passages.  In the very beginning of the Gospels, Mk 5: 18 Jesus says, "Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

I'm sure you like to assume the "all things have taken place" means Jesus' death and resurrection, but it does say "until heaven and earth pass away", which clearly hasn't happened yet, duh!  
We also know that Jesus made it clear that the law was not about just not committing adultery, but about looking lustfully at a woman.  Thou shalt not kill was not just about murder, but was about anger and hatred.  He told us there was more to living in Him than what the Pharisees did, not less.
and Jn 14:11-15, "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe because of the works themselves.  Amen, amen,I say to you, whoever believes in me _*will do the works *_that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father..." 
verse 15, "If you love me, you will keep my *commandments"* etc.

Commandments??  Whoa!  Seems to me there is nothing we need to do according to all SM and IT have said!  What commandments?
See, I believe one of Jesus' _*commandments*_ was, "eat my Flesh" and "drink my Blood".  If He tells me to do it, I'm going to do it.  If He says, "This is my Body" then I'm going to treat it in the reverential/worshipping manner in which I would treat His Body in any time/place/manifestation.
Am I supposed to do as I believe Jesus commanded, or am I supposed to do as SM and IT tell me?  Seems to me I would be very, very guilty before God _even if I am mistaken_, if I truly believe that God commanded something and I chose to ignore it because of what a man said.  
That's the part you two do not get, regardless of the particular faith of any one person on earth.  If, through prayer and study, they truly believe they are doing God's Will, then I don't think they will be guilty before Him.


----------



## Bird Dog

You both miss my point. You do you think you are to condemn me and other Roman Catholics and other Christians to Hell because we do not believe exactly as you do?
Did God divine you as a special Prophet?
Are you given that right because you have a better handle on Scripture and use that to condemn?
IS you obviouslyneeded some redemption in your life and found it. Fortunately I have never been lost. I received the Holy Spirit in my Baptism and my faith has been nurtured by the Catholic Church.

I still believe you both to be false prophets, who have formed your own religion by your own interpretation of scripture. 
You are not the first and will not be the last.


----------



## toppick08

Bird Dog said:


> You both miss my point. You do you think you are to condemn me and other Roman Catholics and other Christians to Hell because we do not believe exactly as you do?
> Did God divine you as a special Prophet?
> Are you given that right because you have a better handle on Scripture and use that to condemn?
> IS you obviouslyneeded some redemption in your life and found it. Fortunately I have never been lost. I received the Holy Spirit in my Baptism and my faith has been nurtured by the Catholic Church.
> 
> I still believe you both to be false prophets, who have formed your own religion by your own interpretation of scripture.
> You are not the first and will not be the last.



You or I are neither "born" into anything other than original sin....Ye' must be born again....babies can't even feed themselves....


----------



## onel0126

ItalianScallion said:


> You don't see me or any of the other 4 or 5 true believers on here challenging each other's biblical beliefs or salvation here do you? They are: Starman, 2nd Amendment, Zguy, PsyOps, Baydoll... These folks have *convinced me *by their posts that their "essential" Christian beliefs are correct.



I don't have to convince *you* of ANYTHING.  Neither does anyone else. What you think of me, the RCC will have NO bearing on my salvation.  Pride and arrogance are grave matter my friend and you know it.


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> You both miss my point. You do you think you are to condemn me and other Roman Catholics and other Christians to Hell because we do not believe exactly as you do?
> Did God divine you as a special Prophet?
> Are you given that right because you have a better handle on Scripture and use that to condemn?
> IS you obviouslyneeded some redemption in your life and found it. Fortunately I have never been lost. I received the Holy Spirit in my Baptism and my faith has been nurtured by the Catholic Church.
> 
> I still believe you both to be false prophets, who have formed your own religion by your own interpretation of scripture.
> You are not the first and will not be the last.



We are only pointing out that the RCC "Jesus" is NOT the* New Testament Jesus.* I am sure that you have read the difference between the RCC and New Testament teachings which have previously been posted.

*There Is Only One Truth*


The Holy Bible proclaimes that all mankind is already condemned - we don't condemn anyone.


----------



## onel0126

Starman3000m said:


> We are only pointing out that the RCC "Jesus" is NOT the* New Testament Jesus*


*



God help you if you actually have to answer for this one day.....*


----------



## Bird Dog

Starman3000m said:


> We are only pointing out that the RCC "Jesus" is NOT the* New Testament Jesus.* I am sure that you have read the difference between the RCC and New Testament teachings which have previously been posted.
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*
> 
> 
> The Holy Bible proclaimes that all mankind is already condemned - we don't condemn anyone.



I am not condemed, I am only condemned if I do not believe and do not live by God's words. You claim I am condemned if I do not believe as you do.
False Prophet


Evangelicalism--> Coming soon to a strip mall near you


----------



## toppick08

Bird Dog said:


> I am not condemed, I am only condemned if I do not believe and do not live by God's words. You claim I am condemned if I do not believe as you do.
> False Prophet
> 
> 
> Evangelicalism--> Coming soon to a strip mall near you



Read your Bible and not your Priest....well, that opens a new can o' worms....Should Priests be allowed to be married ........?...y'all carry on.


----------



## PsyOps

ItalianScallion said:


> You don't see me or any of the other 4 or 5 true believers on here challenging each other's biblical beliefs or salvation here do you? They are: Starman, 2nd Amendment, Zguy, PsyOps, Baydoll... These folks have convinced me by their posts that their "essential" Christian beliefs are correct.



I appreciate the plug here, but I have to make something clear... Although I may agree with many of your contentions, I disagree with your approach.  You're an in-your-face kind of person that, in my opinion, scares more people away more than it attracts.  



> And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. - 2 Timothy 2:24-26





> But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. - Galatians 5:22-23



Along with a gentle and loving approach we're commanded to forgive, not condemn.  



> Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times...  “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.” - Matthew 18:21-22&35



Certainly, once you have tried, and believe you have not been heard then move on...



> “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’  If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." - Matthew 18:15-17





> If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. - Matthew 10:14



You have a choice... either be dragged into the fray or keep your discipline in expressing the love and compassion that God put in your heart.  This is the 'turn the other cheek' practice.  You are accomplishing nothing by being confrontational, except inciting more confrontation.


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> I am not condemed, I am only condemned if I do not believe and do not live by God's words. You claim I am condemned if I do not believe as you do.
> False Prophet



Sorry Bird Dog - We are not prophesying anything so your accusation of us being "false prophets" is* FALSE*!

Condemnation is proclaimed upon those who do not believe in God's Plan of Salvation through *The New Testament Jesus* as personal Lord and Saviour.  Those who follow other religions that preach another gospel and another "jesus" are in error and do not know the True Jesus who has secured Salvation for those who trust in Him alone.



> But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.  (Galatians 3:22)
> 
> For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
> He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:17-18)



*There Is Only One Truth and Only One True Jesus*


----------



## thatguy

Starman3000m said:


> Sorry Bird Dog - We are not prophesying anything so your accusation of us being "false prophets" is* FALSE*!
> 
> Condemnation is proclaimed upon those who do not believe in God's Plan of Salvation through *The New Testament Jesus* as personal Lord and Saviour.  Those who follow other religions that preach another gospel and another "jesus" are in error and do not know the True Jesus who has secured Salvation for those who trust in Him alone.
> 
> 
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth and Only One True Jesus*



that is wexactly what you do.
try looking at the definition:


> prophesy [ˈprɒfɪˌsaɪ]
> vb -sies, -sying, -sied
> 1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) to reveal or foretell (something, esp a future event) by or as if by divine inspiration
> 2. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) (intr) Archaic to give instruction in religious subjects



the second definintion is the most applicable here considering the subject matter, but either one fits. You routinely claim to be the relayer of gods word, and also routinely claim to know gods will and intention while making wild claims about jesus.

*you are a false prophet*


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> We want you to trust in theNew Testament Jesus; We want you to have a place in Heaven; we want you to know the True Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour:





Starman3000m said:


> We are only pointing out that the RCC "Jesus" is NOT the* New Testament Jesus.I am sure that you have read the difference between the RCC and New Testament teachings which have previously been posted.*


*



Starman3000m said:



			Condemnation is proclaimed upon those who do not believe in God's Plan of Salvation through The New Testament Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour.
		
Click to expand...



I don't know who you are to say what the "New Testament" Jesus is, but I'll stick with the Apostolic faith that was present during Jesus' life and without which we wouldn't *have* a New Testament.

You are extraordinarily presumptious and, yes, a false prophet.*


----------



## toppick08

Bird Dog said:


> I am not condemed, I am only condemned if I do not believe and *do not live by God's words.* You claim I am condemned if I do not believe as you do.
> False Prophet
> 
> 
> Evangelicalism--> Coming soon to a strip mall near you



Do you ?...I don't...none of us do.


----------



## Starman3000m

thatguy said:


> that is wexactly what you do.
> try looking at the definition:
> 
> 
> the second definintion is the most applicable here considering the subject matter, but either one fits. You routinely claim to be the relayer of gods word, and also routinely claim to know gods will and intention while making wild claims about jesus.
> 
> *you are a false prophet*



Don't you believe that The Holy Bible is what reveals the *Truth* of God's Word? 

My pointing out the difference between what the Holy Bible teaches and what other religions claim is not being a "false prophet" at all.  In fact - pointing out the difference and guiding misled people to the True Jesus is what all believers are entrusted to do by using God's Word.



> *All scripture* is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.(2 Timothy 3:16-17)
> 
> I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
> Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; *reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.* For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; (2 Timothy 4:1-3)


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> I don't know who you are to say what the "New Testament" Jesus is, but I'll stick with the Apostolic faith that was present during Jesus' life and without which we wouldn't *have* a New Testament.
> 
> You are extraordinarily presumptious and, yes, a false prophet.



Do you believe that Mary was assumed and is reigning as "Queen of Heaven" Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus?


----------



## thatguy

Starman3000m said:


> Don't you believe that The Holy Bible is what reveals the *Truth* of God's Word?
> 
> My pointing out the difference between what the Holy Bible teaches and what other religions claim is not being a "false prophet" at all.  In fact - pointing out the difference and guiding misled people to the True Jesus is what all believers are entrusted to do by using God's Word.



you are pointing out where their interpretation differs from yours, that is all. claiming that you are somehow devinely jsutified is what makes you a false prophet. Just like the ones warned about in the bible.


----------



## onel0126

Starman3000m said:


> Do you believe that Mary was assumed and is reigning as "Queen of Heaven" Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus?



One more time, because I can only assume you are trying to be confrontational instead of educating the great unwashed:

169 *Salvation comes from God alone*; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation." Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.

1257 *The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation*. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

183 *Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" *(Mk 16:16).

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all *salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body*: 
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.


----------



## Starman3000m

thatguy said:


> you are pointing out where their interpretation differs from yours, that is all. claiming that you are somehow devinely jsutified is what makes you a false prophet. Just like the ones warned about in the bible.



I'll ask you the same question that I have asked others:

Do you believe that Mary was assumed and is reigning as "Queen of Heaven" Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus?


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> One more time, because I can only assume you are trying to be confrontational instead of educating the great unwashed:
> 
> 169 *Salvation comes from God alone*; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation." Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.
> 
> 1257 *The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation*. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
> 
> 183 *Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" *(Mk 16:16).
> 
> 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all *salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body*:
> Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.



What is Your Answer:

Do you believe that Mary was assumed and is reigning as "Queen of Heaven" Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus?


----------



## toppick08

onel0126 said:


> One more time, because I can only assume you are trying to be confrontational instead of educating the great unwashed:
> 
> 169 *Salvation comes from God alone*; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation." Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.
> 
> 1257 *The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation*. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
> 
> 183 *Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" *(Mk 16:16).
> 
> 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all *salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body*:
> Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.



oh snap...:fail:


----------



## thatguy

Starman3000m said:


> I'll ask you the same question that I have asked others:
> 
> Do you believe that Mary was assumed and is reigning as "Queen of Heaven" Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus?



so we agree that you are a false prophet, just like the ones the bible warns of?


----------



## toppick08

Starman3000m said:


> What is Your Answer:
> 
> Do you believe that Mary was assumed and is reigning as "Queen of Heaven" Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus?



Vain Glory...the pope is a #### also..


----------



## Starman3000m

thatguy said:


> so we agree that you are a false prophet, just like the ones the bible warns of?



You haven't answered the question.

Do you believe that Mary was assumed and is reigning as "Queen of Heaven" Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus? 

The Vatican states she does; the New Testament does not mention anything of Mary being assumed and being all that the RCC claims of her.

So, what do you believe?


----------



## onel0126

toppick08 said:


> oh snap...:fail:



Fail hell.


----------



## thatguy

Starman3000m said:


> You haven't answered the question.
> 
> Do you believe that Mary was assumed and is reigning as "Queen of Heaven" Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus?
> 
> The Vatican states she does; the New Testament does not mention anything of Mary being assumed and being all that the RCC claims of her.
> 
> So, what do you believe?



you dont really want my answer, you are just trying to distract from the *the one truth, that you are a flase prophet*


----------



## toppick08

onel0126 said:


> Fail hell.



...wanna bet ?


----------



## Starman3000m

thatguy said:


> you dont really want my answer, you are just trying to distract from the *the one truth, that you are a flase prophet*



Yes, I do want your answer.

Do you believe that Mary was assumed and is reigning as "Queen of Heaven" Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus?


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Do you believe that Mary was assumed and is reigning as "Queen of Heaven" Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus?



I already answered that question for you. Truly, at this point in time  you are nothing but a false prophet and a squawking parrot.


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> Fail hell.



Do you believe that Mary was assumed and is reigning as "Queen of Heaven" Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus?


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> I already answered that question for you. Truly, at this point in time  you are nothing but a false prophet and a squawking parrot.



So your answer is "Yes" - you DO believe that Mary was assumed and is reigning as "Queen of Heaven" Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus?


----------



## thatguy

Starman3000m said:


> Yes, I do want your answer.
> 
> Do you believe that Mary was assumed and is reigning as "Queen of Heaven" Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus?



no, but i t doesn't matter to me because the bible was written by men, just like every other fiction.
agree or not, *starman is a false prophet*


----------



## toppick08

Well,...looks like a gold ole fashioned , come to Jesus meetin' is in order....Bring your dusty Bible my dear Catholic friends......you know, the one that you don't read....not that I'm perfect grant ya'....


----------



## onel0126

Starman3000m said:


> So your answer is "Yes" - you DO believe that Mary was assumed and is reigning as "Queen of Heaven" Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus?



Libby pointed you to Scott Hahn's book entitled, "Hail Holy Queen."  You won't buy it but I can point you to pages 125 and 126 for you to browse through it at your local Borders.  Yes, absolutely I believe Mary was assumed.  If you are going to quote the catechism you should do so exactly as it is written though.


----------



## Starman3000m

thatguy said:


> no, but i t doesn't matter to me because the bible was written by men, just like every other fiction.
> agree or not, *starman is a false prophet*



So then you are not only accussing me alone as being a  "false prophet" but you are now also ascerting, by your comment, that the pope and all other leaders of organized religions are all false prophets too!  

In other words, all the people you claim to have been "defending" against my comments are all following false prophets and you are just as much indirectly mocking them as well.  

You may believe that the Holy Bible is just like any other fiction but what if it turns out to be True?

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## onel0126

toppick08 said:


> Well,...looks like a gold ole fashioned , come to Jesus meetin' is in order....Bring your dusty Bible my dear Catholic friends......you know, the one that you don't read....not that I'm perfect grant ya'....



You truly have nothing to add of any substance do you?


----------



## toppick08

onel0126 said:


> You truly have nothing to add of any substance do you?



Neither do you....what do you want to know ?


----------



## toppick08

onel0126 said:


> You truly have nothing to add of any substance do you?



My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20 because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. 21 Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.


----------



## onel0126

toppick08 said:


> Neither do you....what do you want to know ?



Why were you at one time considering converting?


----------



## toppick08

onel0126 said:


> Why were you at one time considering converting?



Don't know....really.


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> ...Yes, absolutely I believe Mary was assumed.  If you are going to quote the catechism you should do so exactly as it is written though.



If a second person (Mary) needs to be involved as Mediatrix, co-Redeemer and Queen over all things, then Jesus is not the only Mediator between God and mankind as mentioned in (1 Timothy 2:5) thus, the Holy Bible is wrong - according to the RCC.

The following two catechism excerpts from the Vatican's site are enough to show that the Jesus and the Mary the RCC teaches are NOT the Jesus and Mary of the New Testament.




> 966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."506 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
> 
> 969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."510
> 
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2C.HTM
> 
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm


----------



## onel0126

Starman3000m said:


> If a second person (Mary) needs to be involved as Mediatrix, co-Redeemer and Queen over all things, then Jesus' is not the only Mediator between God and mankind as mentioned in (1 Timothy 2:5) thus, the Holy Bible is wrong - according to the RCC.
> 
> The following two catechism excerpts from the Vatican's site are enough to show that the Jesus and the Mary the RCC teaches are NOT the Jesus and Mary of the New Testament.



Don't see Co-redeemer.


----------



## onel0126

Starman3000m said:


> If a second person (Mary) *needs to be involved *



Don't see "needs to be involved."


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> Don't see Co-redeemer.



Pope John Paul II  made such a claim. Does not papal authority have a right to make changes? Also, Bavarian has claimed that Mary helps allow souls into heaven. 



> 1985: Pope John Paul II recognized Mary as co-redemptrix" during a speech in Guayaquil, Ecuador. He said, in part, "Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity...In fact Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son." 4
> 
> The Virgin Mary as co-redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate



So what you are saying then is that Mary IS NOT co-redemptrix. But she is alive in Heaven as perpetual virgin, queen over all things, and mediatrix?


----------



## onel0126

Starman3000m said:


> Pope John Paul II  made such a claim. Does not papal authority have a right to make changes? Also, Bavarian has claimed that Mary helps allow souls into heaven.
> 
> So what you are saying then is that Mary IS NOT co-redemptrix. But she is alive in Heaven as perpetual virgin, queen over all things, and mediatrix?



JPII was not speaking infallibly at the time.  I know this because this has only happened twice in the history of the RCC.  I don't comment on what other fellow Catholics claim--only what the Church teaches.  The link to the article you posted says nothing other than a group of Catholics have started a petition to make three Marian points part of the dogma of the Church which HAS NOT happened.  I believe firmly in what the Church teaches to answer your last question.


----------



## Bird Dog

Starman3000m said:


> So then you are not only accussing me alone as being a  "false prophet" but you are now also ascerting, by your comment, that the pope and all other leaders of organized religions are all false prophets too!
> 
> In other words, all the people you claim to have been "defending" against my comments are all following false prophets and you are just as much indirectly mocking them as well.
> 
> You may believe that the Holy Bible is just like any other fiction but what if it turns out to be True?
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



I am only accussing you as a false prophet for your prediction that I and other Christians are  going to hell because we do not  believe in exactly like you. If you are not a false prophet you need to spend your time helping people who have no God in their lives, the true lost sheep.



Evangelicalism---> Coming soon to a strip mall near you


----------



## thatguy

Starman3000m said:


> So then you are not only accussing me alone as being a  "false prophet" but you are now also ascerting, by your comment, that the pope and all other leaders of organized religions are all false prophets too!
> 
> In other words, all the people you claim to have been "defending" against my comments are all following false prophets and you are just as much indirectly mocking them as well.
> 
> You may believe that the Holy Bible is just like any other fiction but what if it turns out to be True?
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



only you, IS and one or two others here are acting as false prophets. the others here (the catholics you choose to attack in particular) seem to only be following their faith. thats the difference, you are prophesising that they are wrong in their beliefs, that makes you a false prophet.
Another key to knowing you are a false prophet is that you refuse to hold your own beleifs to the same scrutiny as those you attack. It has been pointed out numerous times that you routinely violate directives from the bible, yet you are not repentant, and continue to sin in those areas 9using your rules).
as for what if it turns out to be true, well, it is a fact that the bible was written by men. anything more devine than that is up for debate. even the authorsip of the various books is debateable.
but following your line of reason, what if scientology is right? I guess you better start making you donations to L Ron


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> JPII was not speaking infallibly at the time.  I know this because this has only happened twice in the history of the RCC.  I don't comment on what other fellow Catholics claim--only what the Church teaches.  The link to the article you posted says nothing other than a group of Catholics have started a petition to make three Marian points part of the dogma of the Church which HAS NOT happened.  I believe firmly in what the Church teaches to answer your last question.



The Roman Catholic Church is teaching another gospel; another "Jesus" and another "Mary".  You have placed your faith in what the Vatican proclaims and not what the New Testament proclaims. That is your choice. 

*There Is Only One Truth *


----------



## onel0126

Starman3000m said:


> The Roman Catholic Church is teaching another gospel; another "Jesus" and another "Mary".  You have placed your faith in what the Vatican proclaims and not what the New Testament proclaims. That is your choice.
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth *



I disagree.  Time to move on unless you want to use your usual tactics of


----------



## onel0126

Starman3000m said:


> *There Is Only One Truth *


 and it may not be yours......


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> Seems to me there is nothing we need to do according to all SM and IT have said!  What commandments?
> See, I believe one of Jesus' _*commandments*_ was, "eat my Flesh" and "drink my Blood".  If He tells me to do it, I'm going to do it.  If He says, "This is my Body" then I'm going to treat it in the reverential/worshipping manner in which I would treat His Body in any time/place/manifestation. Am I supposed to do as I believe Jesus commanded, or am I supposed to do as SM and IT tell me?  Seems to me I would be very, very guilty before God _even if I am mistaken_, if I truly believe that God commanded something and I chose to ignore it because of what a man said.


Jesus never condoned or intended "cannibalism & vampirism" Libby. If you're going to take everything literally, you MUST follow ALL those verses literally. There is a right way & a wrong way to interpret them. I'd like to hear your comments about these 2. Do you take them literally?

(Matthew 5:29) "If your right eye causes you to stumble, *gouge it out and throw it away*. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell".

(Luke 14:25) "Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not *hate father and mother*, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple".


Bird Dog said:


> You both miss my point. Who do you think you are to condemn me and other Roman Catholics and other Christians to Hell because we do not believe exactly as you do?
> Did God divine you as a special Prophet?
> Are you given that right because you have a better handle on Scripture and use that to condemn?
> IS you obviously needed some redemption in your life and found it. Fortunately I have never been lost. I received the Holy Spirit in my Baptism and my faith has been nurtured by the Catholic Church.
> I still believe you both to be false prophets, who have formed your own religion by your own interpretation of scripture.


Again, the problem with having the wrong standard of truth. Baptism did not wash away any of your sins nor does it give you the Holy Spirit. And I have not condemned you to Hell Mr Drama. You just cannot accept correction IMO 
Say what you want about me; I've tried. Your life is between you & God. I wish you well on your journey...


onel0126 said:


> I don't have to convince *you* of ANYTHING.  Neither does anyone else. What you think of me, the RCC will have NO bearing on my salvation.  *Pride and arrogance are grave matters* my friend and you know it.


So is ignorance...


PsyOps said:


> ...Although I may agree with many of your contentions, I disagree with your approach.  You're an in-your-face kind of person that, in my opinion, scares more people away more than it attracts. You are accomplishing nothing by being confrontational, except inciting more confrontation.


I know PsyOps; We've already discussed this. I am not exclusively an "in your face" type of person and you know that. I DO use the more gentle approach many times but it STILL gets viewed as jugemental and hateful by those who are being corrected (Jesus said it would). If I'm guilty of anything, it would be my relentlessness (which I do have to work on). There comes a time when I need to "brush the dust off" but I have trouble giving up on people whom I care about...

There is a time for both types of approaches (Jesus & John the Baptist used them both). And, honestly, I haven't seen any of the parties involved here, change their thinking because of anything that "the gentler approach" has said...


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> and it may not be yours......



The RCC is preaching another gospel, another "Jesus" and another "Mary," and, in this regard along with other misguided teachings, the Vatican is not in agreement with the teachings of the New Testament accounts.

We are told to honor the Son - nowhere does the Holy Bible tell us to honor Mary as being "assumed bodily up to Heaven" where she is now reigning with Jesus as "Queen over all things," "Advocate," "Mediatrix," etc.



> For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
> That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. (John 5:22-23)
> 
> Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matthew 7:22-24)
> 
> Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
> And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)
> 
> Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22)



*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## libby

ItalianScallion said:


> Jesus never condoned or intended "cannibalism & vampirism" Libby. If you're going to take everything literally, you MUST follow ALL those verses literally. There is a right way & a wrong way to interpret them. I'd like to hear your comments about these 2. Do you take them literally?
> 
> (Matthew 5:29) "If your right eye causes you to stumble, *gouge it out and throw it away*. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell".
> 
> (Luke 14:25) "Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not *hate father and mother*, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple".
> 
> Again, the problem with having the wrong standard of truth. Baptism did not wash away any of your sins nor does it give you the Holy Spirit. And I have not condemned you to Hell Mr Drama. You just cannot accept correction IMO
> Say what you want about me; I've tried. Your life is between you & God. I wish you well on your journey...
> 
> So is ignorance...
> 
> I know PsyOps; We've already discussed this. I am not exclusively an "in your face" type of person and you know that. I DO use the more gentle approach many times but it STILL gets viewed as jugemental and hateful by those who are being corrected (Jesus said it would). If I'm guilty of anything, it would be my relentlessness (which I do have to work on). There comes a time when I need to "brush the dust off" but I have trouble giving up on people whom I care about...
> 
> There is a time for both types of approaches (Jesus & John the Baptist used them both). And, honestly, I haven't seen any of the parties involved here, change their thinking because of anything that "the gentler approach" has said...



Well, what do you think it means, IT?  According to you, once saved always saved, so why would Jesus tell His followers they needed to be concerned about their sin at all?  He's got it covered, right?


----------



## PsyOps

ItalianScallion said:


> I know PsyOps; We've already discussed this. I am not exclusively an "in your face" type of person and you know that. I DO use the more gentle approach many times but it STILL gets viewed as jugemental and hateful by those who are being corrected (Jesus said it would). If I'm guilty of anything, it would be my relentlessness (which I do have to work on). There comes a time when I need to "brush the dust off" but I have trouble giving up on people whom I care about...
> 
> There is a time for both types of approaches (Jesus & John the Baptist used them both). And, honestly, I haven't seen any of the parties involved here, change their thinking because of anything that "the gentler approach" has said...



I'm talking specifically about you making the decision about who is saved and who is not based on their practices.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> There is a time for both types of approaches (Jesus & John the Baptist used them both). And, honestly, I haven't seen any of the parties involved here, change their thinking because of anything that "the gentler approach" has said...



I don't see anyone changing their way of thinking with the not-so-gentle approach either, and you've been at it for several years now. Perhaps it's time you choose to love us in a different manner.


----------



## Starman3000m

PsyOps said:


> I'm talking specifically about you making the decision about who is saved and who is not based on their practices.





The basis of Salvation depends on which *Jesus* one places their complete and total faith in.

Based on the authority of The Holy Bible there is only One Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5) There is no co-Mediator.

Based on the authority of the Holy Bible, we have been warned that there will be those who preach another gospel and another Jesus: (2 Corinthians 11:4) and (Galatians 1:6-9) IOW: Counterfeit saviours that people place their faith in - thus, pseudo-Christian denominations: Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Muslims, and yes, even the Roman Catholic Church as long as they teach the heretical claim that Mary has been assumed up to Heaven and she is to be "...invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."510 (according to the RCC Catechism - http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm)

Based on the authority of The Holy Bible, we are to correct those who are in error and who have been deceived into following a false teaching: (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and (2 Timothy 4:2-5)

Based on the authority of The Holy Bible, following religious rituals, and the practice of religious traditions are not what earns a person's salvation:  (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Truth will always be controversial and be seen as confrontational when it comes face to face with the opposition. In this specific instance, and throughout all the previous threads on this subject, it should be quite evident that the RCC is preaching another "Jesus."

We sincerely consider you as a friend, PsyOps and I have no doubt that you share a burden in wanting to have others know the Jesus that you believe in so that they may receive Salvation through Him as sole Redeemer. The only thing I can say is that if you can find a nice, gentle and non-offending way to tell libby, Radiant1, Bird Dog, Bavarian, one, and others that the Jesus you believe does not share His Glory with Mary participating in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Advocate" and "co-Mediatrix" nor does He send people to a place called purgatory for further cleansing of one's soul, then please take it from here.  

Yes - *There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Bird Dog

ItalianScallion said:


> Jesus never condoned or intended "cannibalism & vampirism"
> said...



The Holy Eucharist.........cannibalism..vampirism    You are really sick



Evangelicalism----->Coming soon to a strip mall near you


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> Well, what do you think it means, IT?  According to you, once saved always saved, so why would Jesus tell His followers they needed to be concerned about their sin at all?  He's got it covered, right?


 Don't answer a question with a question darling. I'll wait...


PsyOps said:


> I'm talking specifically about you making the decision about who is saved and who is not based on their practices.


I've never made that decision based on their practices. If someone says they don't believe in the true God, then I simply call it like it is. In fact, I've always said that the Catholic church teaches the Trinity doctrine. It's what they teach after it that concerns me...


Radiant1 said:


> I don't see anyone changing their way of thinking with the not-so-gentle approach either, and you've been at it for several years now. Perhaps it's time you choose to love us in a different manner.


Perhaps you also need to open your eyes and see that I do all this, day after day, because I love and care for you folks. 


Bird Dog said:


> The Holy Eucharist.........cannibalism..vampirism    You are really sick


I'm sick??? I'll give you a word to chew on. Please give me your take on it: 
"Trans-substantiation"


----------



## libby

Okay, IT. Yes, I do believe Jesus literally meant that if you cannot control yourself, it would be better to cut off the offending body part.  He did not say we should use that as a punishment for someone else, and He did not say that we must cut off our body parts.  What He said was that "it would be better", which is not a command.
However, the "eat my Flesh" was repeated four times over, and within the discourse He said, "you shall have no life in you" if you do not participate in the "real food" and "real drink" that is His Body and Blood.
I've said it before, the Pharisees did not believe a man could be God.  What they failed to realize is that God could be a man.  
You say a piece of bread cannot be God, but fail to realize that God can be a piece of bread iif He chooses to come to us in that form, to feed us supernaturally.


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> I'm glad you said that.....Now, speaking of dodging and evading, we're still waiting to hear the name of the church where you worship--asked 2 weeks ago.



And again, this has what to do with the topic of this thread?

But just to satisfy your curiosity, I belong to the same church as the Apostles and New Testament disciples.   You can find it listed in the book of Acts.


----------



## baydoll

toppick08 said:


> Probably one of them other Christian Churches.....





There is only one TRUE church, toppick. Like I mentioned to the previous poster whathisname, you can find it in the book of Acts.  And no, it's not a denomination.


----------



## toppick08

baydoll said:


> There is only one TRUE church, toppick. Like I mentioned to the previous poster whathisname, you can find it in the book of Acts.  And no, it's not a denomination.



I agree...


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> I don't know who you are to say what the "New Testament" Jesus is, but I'll stick with the Apostolic faith that was present during Jesus' life and without which we wouldn't *have* a New Testament.



The following quote is from an ex-Catholic:



> What appears to you to be Catholic "bashing" is, in reality, aggressive "witnessing" in the hope of shaking Roman Catholics out of the complacency that prevents them from comparing Catholic doctrines with the infallible and unchanging Scriptures. Once a Catholic can be motivated to do what the Bereans did under Paul's preaching, that is, "search the Scriptures," it is not long until they come to realize that the Catholic Jesus is not the Jesus of Scripture, and salvation is not to be found in any of the various religions.
> 
> If Catholicism really IS the one and only Church founded by Jesus, its organization, its doctrines, and its liturgies should dovetail with what is known about the apostolic Church. But, when we consult the written records - those found in the Bible, the history books, and the writings of early Church saints - we are hard pressed to find how today's Roman Catholic Church is even remotely related to the Church instituted by Christ and propagated by His disciples. What we do find is a religion, not of grace, but of works, governed not by independent bishops, but by a self-styled monarch, and “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Mat 15:9) Hence, all of Rome's propaganda notwithstanding, Catholicism's antiquity is self-assumed, and has no relationship whatever to the truth. All the claims of longevity are just that, and only that - claims unsubstantiated by history, the Holy Scriptures, or the writings of early church saints. Rome is undaunted in the face of reality and truth, however, adamantly insisting that Catholicism is the one and only true church founded by Christ. Therefore, of Catholicism's numerous heresies, this must be considered the first, for it is the one from which all the others derive their existence




Just to name a few:



> Catholic popes are imposters. They demand that Catholics believe many doctrines contradictory to the Holy Bible. For instance, you are forced under pain of sin to believe that Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ. But the Word of God says Jesus was her "firstborn," and she had four other sons and at least two daughters, all siblings of our Lord. Historians Josephus and Eusebius confirm what the Bible teaches. You are forced to believe there is a Purgatory, but the Word of God says there is heaven and there is hell. By faith in the finished work of Jesus one goes directly to heaven at the time of death, having received His righteousness. By faith in a religion one goes directly to hell.
> 
> "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me." (Mary can't help.)
> 
> "I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosover liveth and believeth in me shall never die." (Whosoever means anyone of faith, not religionists alone.)
> 
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whoseoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (Belief must be in Christ, not Catholic doctrines.)
> 
> "For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." (Sacramental works don't count. It's a totally free gift.)
> 
> "Not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us through the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit." (He did the dying, all we do is the believing & trusting.)
> 
> That Roman Catholicism is the largest religion calling itself Christian is not a favorable characteristic. For Jesus Himself said, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Mat 7:13,14) Jesus said He is the door (gate), not the pope or Catholicism.
> 
> We love Catholics, but we don't like the doctrines that keep their eyes off of Jesus and His finished work.
> 
> From Ex-Catholic John Schroeder


----------



## baydoll

toppick08 said:


> I agree...



Thank you.


----------



## baydoll

thatguy said:


> you are pointing out where their interpretation differs from yours, that is all.



Which Scripture interpretation do the Catholics get their Mary's Assumption, her reign as "Queen of Heaven" and her Mediatrix and co-Redeemer alongside Jesus from?



> claiming that you are somehow devinely jsutified is what makes you a false prophet. Just like the ones warned about in the bible



How do you know the Catholic Church isn't false?


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> One more time, because I can only assume you are trying to be confrontational instead of educating the great unwashed:
> 
> 169 *Salvation comes from God alone*; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation." Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.



Where did Jesus (or anybody else in the Bible) say that Mary is our *mother* and our teacher in the faith?


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> The following quote is from an ex-Catholic:
> 
> Just to name a few:



Thanks for posting the opinionated propaganda, but that's all it is really; a fluff piece.  We would contend with evidence that Catholicism (Orthodoxy and Coptics) are indeed apostolic. So what? Again, and for the hundredth time posted on this forum, scriptural interpretation is of one or another's opinion. We just don't happen to agree with yours, or the author's for that matter. :shrug:

It is what it is, it's time Evanglicals got over the fact that not everyone agrees with their supposed "truth" and moved on.


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> 1257 *The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation*. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.



If the Lord Himself affirmed Baptism is necessary for salvation, why do we not see babies getting baptized in the New Testament?


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> Thanks for posting the opinionated propaganda, but that's all it is really; a fluff piece.  We would contend with evidence that Catholicism (Orthodoxy and Coptics) are indeed apostolic. So what? Again, and for the hundredth time posted on this forum, scriptural interpretation is of one or another's opinion. We just don't happen to agree with yours, or the author's for that matter. :shrug:
> 
> It is what it is, it's time Evanglicals got over the fact that not everyone agrees with their supposed "truth" and moved on.



Oh, good...whew! We can all relax now.. Radiant1 hath spoken! You can all go back to sleep folks.


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> 183 *Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" *(Mk 16:16).



So do babies believe?


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all *salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body*:



But the real question is....

How does one know the Catholic Church is really whom it claims to be and isn't lying through it's teeth?


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.



Roman Catholicism is nothing more than a self-centered religion
where the focus is on what one must do to save him(her)self. It is a religion in which each person becomes his/her own savior. 

There is no grace, no faith, no love, no joy, no hope, no peace and definetly no security in God in this religion. 

It is all a horrifying and most tragic sham.

(edited because I can.  )


----------



## Zguy28

baydoll said:


> Roman Catholicism is nothing more than a self-centered religion.
> It is a *works-centered* religion where the focus is on what I must do to save myself. It is a religion in which each person becomes his/her own savior.
> 
> There is no grace, no faith, no love, no joy, no hope, no peace and no security in God. It is all a horrifying and most tragic sham.


I must disagree. While I believe many of their doctrines are in error, I do not believe you can make a blanket statement like that.

Where is your grace? You don't show very much grace yourself.

Where is your love? You don't show very much love yourself.

Where is your joy? You don't show very much joy yourself.

Where is your peace? You don't show very much peace yourself.

You believe Roman Catholic's errors are great enough to even jeopardize salvation? Fine.

I believe those who have belligerent and non-gracious attitudes jeopardize themselves. Not that they can lose their salvation, but its a sign they may not have ever had to begin with.

God's children are called to humility (amongst other things like forgiveness). Are you humble? Or are you scathing? Ask yourself this, as should we all.


----------



## Vince

baydoll said:


> Roman Catholicism is nothing more than a self-centered religion
> where the focus is on what one must do to save him(her)self. It is a religion in which each person becomes his/her own savior.
> 
> There is no grace, no faith, no love, no joy, no hope, no peace and definetly no security in God in this religion.
> 
> It is all a horrifying and most tragic sham.
> 
> (edited because I can.  )


WOW.  The biggest load of crap I've read so far.


----------



## onel0126

Zguy28 said:


> I believe those who have belligerent and non-gracious attitudes jeopardize themselves. Not that they can lose their salvation, but its a sign they may not have ever had to begin with.



Amen brother.  The problem I have with OSAS--I'm not sure some (by no means all) that subscribe to this were ever REALLY saved to begin with--false since of security.


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> Roman Catholicism is nothing more than a self-centered religion
> where the focus is on what one must do to save him(her)self. It is a religion in which each person becomes his/her own savior.
> 
> There is no grace, no faith, no love, no joy, no hope, no peace and definetly no security in God in this religion.
> 
> It is all a horrifying and most tragic sham.
> 
> (edited because I can.  )



Yep--winning post of the month; by far.


----------



## Zguy28

onel0126 said:


> Amen brother.  The problem I have with OSAS--I'm not sure some (by no means all) that subscribe to this were ever REALLY saved to begin with--false since of security.


Or a true assurance of salvation.

OSAS is often misunderstood I think. It's not that you cannot lose salvation, it's that you will not. Scripture says that God preserves His people to salvation and that no one overpower God. You can take it to the bank that if you are saved and you wander away into the proverbial hills, God will make an effort to bring you back into the sheep fold.

Speaking of disciples as "little ones" Jesus taught:

10"See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. 12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? 13And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. 14*So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.*

That to me speaks of the greatest security. 

EDIT: Also notice that in the following teaching in Matt 18, Jesus gives an example of a false convert with the "unforgiving servant". He was false because he never was actually forgiven although God was willing.

The post-commentary of Jesus on the Lord's Prayer states if you don't forgive, you will not be forgiven and that many will be lost who thought they were saved because they never were regenerated or truly repented.


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> Or a true assurance of salvation.
> 
> OSAS is often misunderstood I think. It's not that you cannot lose salvation, it's that you will not.
> 
> Scripture says that God preserves His people to salvation and that no one overpower God. You can take it to the bank that if you are saved and you wander away into the proverbial hills, God will make an effort to bring you back into the sheep fold.



Yeah but one cooperates in their salvation. If one strays and refuses to come back into the fold, what then? They're saved anyway? In the OSAS tradition, if one strays then they are said to have never really been saved at all. Obviously, they at least thought they were at one point in time, so where's the assurance? How do you really know for sure?



Zguy28 said:


> Speaking of disciples as "little ones" Jesus taught:
> 
> 10"See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. 12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? 13And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. 14*So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.*
> 
> That to me speaks of the greatest security.



Of course God does not will that anyone should perish, but He gave us our own free will. That free will implies that we can indeed perish by our own fault. How do you reconcile the above with Phillipians 2:12? It seems to me if Paul is saying you need to work out your salvation, then it's not exactly assured.


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> Yeah but one cooperates in their salvation. If one strays and refuses to come back into the fold, what then? They're saved anyway? In the OSAS tradition, if one strays then they are said to have never really been saved at all. Obviously, they at least thought they were at one point in time, so where's the assurance? How do you really know for sure?


The assurance comes from God's Word. God will not let you wander away permanently if you are one of His. He knows His sheep and His sheep know Him. 

I'm a Calvinist. I believe in the doctrines of grace aka irresistible grace.  



> Of course God does not will that anyone should perish, but He gave us our own free will. That free will implies that we can indeed perish by our own fault. How do you reconcile the above with Phillipians 2:12? It seems to me if Paul is saying you need to work out your salvation, then it's not exactly assured.


In 2 Peter, Peter is writing to the elect of God, people who are saved. God does not will that any of these should perish, but all come to repentance. And they do. God will save them, without doubt. This is also assured and manifested in your working out of salvation and bearing fruit of the Spirit. "Working out" means to work as if you had to earn it, even though it is purely by grace. God has prepared works beforehand for you to do, so you better do them.


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> The assurance comes from God's Word. God will not let you wander away permanently if you are one of His. He knows His sheep and His sheep know Him.
> 
> *I'm a Calvinist.* I believe in the doctrines of grace aka irresistible grace.
> 
> In 2 Peter, Peter is writing to the elect of God, people who are saved. God does not will that any of these should perish, but all come to repentance. And they do. God will save them, without doubt. This is also assured and manifested in your working out of salvation and bearing fruit of the Spirit. "Working out" means to work as if you had to earn it, even though it is purely by grace. God has prepared works beforehand for you to do, so you better do them.



Grace, yes, but predestination does not make for predetermination. IOW, you deny cooperation of the human free will. Or again, IOW, humans have no choice whether they are going to heaven or hell.


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> Grace, yes, but predestination does not make for predetermination. IOW, you deny cooperation of the human free will. Or again, IOW, humans have no choice whether they are going to heaven or hell.


Yes, TULIP as it's commonly called. I am definitely of the Reformed tradition when it comes to theology.

Calvinism - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity



>


Hey, I'm just being intellectually honest.


----------



## onel0126

Zguy28 said:


> Yes, TULIP as it's commonly called. I am definitely of the Reformed tradition when it comes to theology.
> 
> Calvinism - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity
> 
> Hey, I'm just being intellectually honest.



Calvinism by default is extra biblical is some ways--as you point out that Catholicism is.  I know you will disagree, but it is a *man made collection *of pre-existing theologies at the very least no matter what the individual principles are by themselves.  It is a sort of "guidebook," no?


----------



## Zguy28

onel0126 said:


> Calvinism by default is extra biblical is some ways--as you point out that Catholicism is.  I know you will disagree, but it is a *man made collection *of pre-existing theologies at the very least no matter what the individual principles are by themselves.  It is a sort of "guidebook," no?


I view it as an obvious conclusion that I, and others, have arrived at.


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> And again, this has what to do with the topic of this thread?
> 
> But just to satisfy your curiosity, I belong to the same church as the Apostles and New Testament disciples.   You can find it listed in the book of Acts.



Speaking of Acts.....

How do you explain the fact that the Apostles had the authority to tell the Judaizers not to require members of their congregations to become circumcised, or to be required to keep kosher? (Acts 15)

If the Apostles had that authority, where did it come from? (Jesus; Matthew 18:18 - whatever you bind is bound; whatever you loose is released) And if it came from Jesus, surely Jesus intended for His Church to have authority in the world.  Please emphasize the fact that Jesus founded a Church and gave it all authority. What He did not do was to send forth a disparate and disagreeing "body of believers" with bibles. That is counter-biblical and has produced only the fruit of division.

1. What did the apostles do after Judas killed himself? They chose and *ordained *a replacement to fill the apostolic office of Judas. This is a CLEAR biblical precedent that while the 12 apostles as eye witnesses held a special role in writing down general revelation into Scripture, their role as leadership and authority has its roots in the *OFFICE*, not the person. Thus when the office holder dies, he is replaced and the role carries on in authority.
2. Jesus himself after the Ascension set the precedent that his Great Commission to spread the Gospel beyond the 12 tribes of Israel meant that there would be more than merely 12 holders of the apostolic office when he made Saul into St. Paul and granted him the status of apostle. But even Paul had to go before the apostles and be accepted. Even when Jesus himself knocks you down and gives you a mission, the biblical precedent is that you do so in UNION with the apostolic church.
3. The Church followed up that precedent by *ordained a bishop *to hold apostolic office in every new city in which the church became established.
4. When the Ethiopean Eunich read the Scriptures and heard about Jesus and wanted to believe, mere scrolls weren't enough. God specifically sent him someone from the Church to explain the Scriptures and to baptize him.

When you read Acts in historical context, you see the infant Church. The forms are present even though some of the words we use today for convenience are not yet coined (words like ecumenical council, ordination, priest, sacrament, etc).


----------



## Zguy28

onel0126 said:


> Speaking of Acts.....
> 
> How do you explain the fact that the Apostles had the authority to tell the Judaizers not to require members of their congregations to become circumcised, or to be required to keep kosher? (Acts 15)
> 
> If the Apostles had that authority, where did it come from? (Jesus; Matthew 18:18 - whatever you bind is bound; whatever you loose is released) And if it came from Jesus, surely Jesus intended for His Church to have authority in the world.  Please emphasize the fact that Jesus founded a Church and gave it all authority. What He did not do was to send forth a disparate and disagreeing "body of believers" with bibles. That is counter-biblical and has produced only the fruit of division.


To use Matthew 18 that way is is stretching it out of context. That verse has direct application to Jesus' teaching on church discipline which immediately precedes it. 

If you want to know where the authority comes from for the Apostles to author doctrine: it is their commissioning from Christ himself. Paul is plain about that in his epistles. This is not a very convincing argument IMHO. :shrug:


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> Okay, IT. Yes, I do believe Jesus literally meant that if you cannot control yourself, it would be better to cut off the offending body part.  He did not say we should use that as a punishment for someone else, and He did not say that we must cut off our body parts.  What He said was that "it would be better", which is not a command. However, the "eat my Flesh" was repeated four times over, and within the discourse He said, "you shall have no life in you" if you do not participate in the "real food" and "real drink" that is His Body and Blood.
> I've said it before, the Pharisees did not believe a man could be God.  What they failed to realize is that God could be a man.
> You say a piece of bread cannot be God, but fail to realize that God can be a piece of bread iif He chooses to come to us in that form, to feed us supernaturally.


Ok then; Thank you for your answer Libby. 


Radiant1 said:


> If one strays and refuses to come back into the fold, what then? They're saved anyway? In the OSAS tradition, if one strays then they are said to have never really been saved at all. Obviously, they at least thought they were at one point in time, so where's the assurance? How do you really know for sure?


If they stray & refuse to return, they were not saved as you've said. Maybe they thought they were, but they didn't "endure to the end". The assurance comes from the verse: "He who endures to the end will be saved". Many do stray but then return like the Prodigal Son.

If they're saved and they stray, God knows their true heart, He will get them back or take them to Heaven. If they don't want to stay in Christ, He will let them go. God does not save someone if they aren't going to remain to the end (Judas). It's really not that difficult of a concept...


Radiant1 said:


> Grace, yes, but predestination does not make for predetermination. IOW, you deny cooperation of the human free will. Or again, IOW, humans have no choice whether they are going to heaven or hell.


Humans have NO choice in their salvation?? Huh?


----------



## onel0126

Zguy28 said:


> To use Matthew 18 that way is is stretching it out of context. That verse has direct application to Jesus' teaching on church discipline which immediately precedes it.
> 
> If you want to know where the authority comes from for the Apostles to author doctrine: it is their commissioning from Christ himself. Paul is plain about that in his epistles. This is not a very convincing argument IMHO. :shrug:



Alrighty then, I back filled a bit.....


----------



## ItalianScallion

baydoll said:


> Roman Catholicism is nothing more than a self-centered religion where the focus is on what one must do to save him(her)self. It is a religion in which each person becomes his/her own savior.
> There is no grace, no faith, no love, no joy, no hope, no peace and definetly no security in God in this religion. It is all a horrifying and most tragic sham.


 Baydoll, even I see these statements as extreme and some here say that I'm the extreme Catholic hater on here (which I'm not). No grace, faith, love, joy, etc?? I can't see that as a blanket statement. Catholicism is a mess but not ALL of them are lost... You should lighten up a little bit.


----------



## Zguy28

onel0126 said:


> Alrighty then, I back filled a bit.....


I see.

What if you don't believe in Roman primacy?

I actually contemplated becoming Eastern Orthodox at one point a few years ago because of my consideration of the merits of apostolic succession. Ultimately I was not convinced and after a long road of prayer and searching the Scriptures I found knowledge which pretty much agrees with what is called Calvinism (or should I say "it found me"? ).


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> Speaking of Acts.....
> 
> How do you explain the fact that the Apostles had the authority to tell the Judaizers not to require members of their congregations to become circumcised, or to be required to keep kosher? (Acts 15)
> 
> If the Apostles had that authority, where did it come from? (Jesus; Matthew 18:18 - whatever you bind is bound; whatever you loose is released) And if it came from Jesus, surely Jesus intended for His Church to have authority in the world.  Please emphasize the fact that Jesus founded a Church and gave it all authority. What He did not do was to send forth a disparate and disagreeing "body of believers" with bibles. That is counter-biblical and has produced only the fruit of division.
> 
> 1. What did the apostles do after Judas killed himself? They chose and *ordained *a replacement to fill the apostolic office of Judas. This is a CLEAR biblical precedent that while the 12 apostles as eye witnesses held a special role in writing down general revelation into Scripture, their role as leadership and authority has its roots in the *OFFICE*, not the person. Thus when the office holder dies, he is replaced and the role carries on in authority.
> 2. Jesus himself after the Ascension set the precedent that his Great Commission to spread the Gospel beyond the 12 tribes of Israel meant that there would be more than merely 12 holders of the apostolic office when he made Saul into St. Paul and granted him the status of apostle. But even Paul had to go before the apostles and be accepted. Even when Jesus himself knocks you down and gives you a mission, the biblical precedent is that you do so in UNION with the apostolic church.
> 3. The Church followed up that precedent by *ordained a bishop *to hold apostolic office in every new city in which the church became established.
> 4. When the Ethiopean Eunich read the Scriptures and heard about Jesus and wanted to believe, mere scrolls weren't enough. God specifically sent him someone from the Church to explain the Scriptures and to baptize him.
> 
> When you read Acts in historical context, you see the infant Church. The forms are present even though some of the words we use today for convenience are not yet coined (words like ecumenical council, ordination, priest, sacrament, etc).



Okay....so what does that have to do with me?


----------



## baydoll

ItalianScallion said:


> Baydoll, even I see these statements as extreme and some here say that I'm the extreme Catholic hater on here (which I'm not). No grace, faith, love, joy, etc?? I can't see that as a blanket statement. Catholicism is a mess but not ALL of them are lost... You should lighten up a little bit.



I apologize to everyone here. You are all right, it was a mean, stupid thing to say and I apologize.


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> I apologize to everyone here. You are all right, it was a mean, stupid thing to say and I apologize.



Accepted.  Funny thing though....a pattern of apologies have come from you only after "one of your own" has taken you to task.  Had Libby, Radiant or me had a problem with your incesant anti-Catholic bigotry we would still be waiting for an apology.  Have a nice weekend.


----------



## libby

onel0126 said:


> Accepted.  Funny thing though....a pattern of apologies have come from you only after "one of your own" has taken you to task.  Had Libby, Radiant or me had a problem with your incesant anti-Catholic bigotry we would still be waiting for an apology.  Have a nice weekend.



She apologized about a week ago, too. While I'm willing to forgive, I'm not willing to put myself in a situation to get spurned again, that is why I refuse to engage any of her queries, unless Z or Psy finds them noteworthy.  When I see a pattern of changed attitude then I will be happy to address the points she is making.


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> She apologized about a week ago, too. While I'm willing to forgive, I'm not willing to put myself in a situation to get spurned again, that is why I refuse to engage any of her queries, unless Z or Psy finds them noteworthy.  When I see a pattern of changed attitude then I will be happy to address the points she is making.



Well, thank you; but I'm not so sure I'm a good example to follow.


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> Accepted.  Funny thing though....a pattern of apologies have come from you only after "one of your own" has taken you to task.  Had Libby, Radiant or me had a problem with your incesant anti-Catholic bigotry we would still be waiting for an apology.  Have a nice weekend.



Thank you! You too!


----------



## toppick08

Ya'll need to have your asses up in church.........


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> She apologized about a week ago, too. While I'm willing to forgive, I'm not willing to put myself in a situation to get spurned again, that is why I refuse to engage any of her queries, unless Z or Psy finds them noteworthy.  When I see a pattern of changed attitude then I will be happy to address the points she is making.



Spurn you libby? You wanna post where I did that? And I can't post unless Z or Psy finds what I post noteworthy? So when did God choose these men to say who can post on here on not? Please enlighten me. 

Also, are you perfect libby? So you've never sinned yourself? You've never uttered (wrote) an unloving, unkind word on here against Starman, ItalianStallion, me or anyone else who disagrees with you? If so by all means do continue to ignore me. But take note....it won't stop me from addressing you in the least.


----------



## baydoll

toppick08 said:


> Ya'll need to have your asses up in church.........


----------



## toppick08




----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Spurn you libby? You wanna post where I did that? And I can't post unless Z or Psy finds what I post noteworthy? So when did God choose these men to say who can post on here on not? Please enlighten me.
> 
> Also, are you perfect libby? So you've never sinned yourself? You've never uttered (wrote) an unloving, unkind word on here against Starman, ItalianStallion, me or anyone else who disagrees with you? If so by all means do continue to ignore me. But take note....it won't stop me from addressing you in the least.



Baydoll, our styles don't jive.  You've been told by a couple people that you need to change your approach, and indeed, you have apologized twice in a week.
I've never been told that I'm rude.  I've never been accused of being uncharitable.  So, yes, I sin, but perhaps these particular sins are not the ones I need to work on.
Your most recent post on the other thread does have merit and it was written with care and charity.  When I return from church I may  have time to answer it.  If not today, perhaps tomorrow.  However, if I'm met again with accusations and anti-Catholic vitriol, without dialogue, I will cease responding to you again.
So, let's see if we can continue on the right foot.


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> Baydoll, our styles don't jive.  You've been told by a couple people that you need to change your approach, and indeed, you have apologized twice in a week.
> I've never been told that I'm rude.  I've never been accused of being uncharitable.  So, yes, I sin, but perhaps these particular sins are not the ones I need to work on.
> Your most recent post on the other thread does have merit and it was written with care and charity.  When I return from church I may  have time to answer it.  If not today, perhaps tomorrow.  However, if I'm met again with accusations and anti-Catholic vitriol, without dialogue, I will cease responding to you again.
> So, let's see if we can continue on the right foot.



How rude.


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> How rude.



Really?  You've got the laughing guy so I don't know if my post came across rude like you say, or if you're joking.
Darn these forums.


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> Really?  You've got the laughing guy so I don't know if my post came across rude like you say, or if you're joking.
> Darn these forums.



I'm joking.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Baydoll, our styles don't jive.  You've been told by a couple people that you need to change your approach, and indeed, you have apologized twice in a week.
> I've never been told that I'm rude.  I've never been accused of being uncharitable.  So, yes, I sin, but perhaps these particular sins are not the ones I need to work on.
> Your most recent post on the other thread does have merit and it was written with care and charity.  When I return from church I may  have time to answer it.  If not today, perhaps tomorrow.  However, if I'm met again with accusations and anti-Catholic vitriol, without dialogue, I will cease responding to you again.
> So, let's see if we can continue on the right foot.



Yes Mommy.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Yes Mommy.



Back on ignore.


----------



## onel0126

As of this writing this thread has just shy of 300 replies.  More than any other post in a year at least on this forum--got tired of clicking throught to check--maybe more than a year.  To my knowledge no forum member's mind has been changed.  While it clearly shows the importance of ths topic on all sides I think we've exhausted every argument either way.  Perhaps a forum truce should be called and we all move on.  There is plenty of other topics to be debated and God forbid agreed upon.


----------



## Bird Dog

onel0126 said:


> As of this writing this thread has just shy of 300 replies.  More than any other post in a year at least on this forum--got tired of clicking throught to check--maybe more than a year.  To my knowledge no forum member's mind has been changed.  While it clearly shows the importance of ths topic on all sides I think we've exhausted every argument either way.  Perhaps a forum truce should be called and we all move on.  There is plenty of other topics to be debated and God forbid agreed upon.



I quit posting awhile ago. It is a shame that, what I believe to be true Christians to get all worked up on Mary, Peter and Paul, the Eucharist and the interpertation of Scripture.  All of us should practice the beliefs of our faiths without nitpicking what we do not like about each others individual practices.  
90 some percent of all our beliefs and concerns parallel each other, we should use that strength and common beliefs to help humankind.
JMHO God Bless


----------



## toppick08

Bird Dog said:


> I quit posting awhile ago. It is a shame that, what I believe to be true Christians to get all worked up on Mary, Peter and Paul, the Eucharist and the interpertation of Scripture.  All of us should practice the beliefs of our faiths without nitpicking what we do not like about each others individual practices.
> 90 some percent of all our beliefs and concerns parallel each other, we should use that strength and common beliefs to help humankind.
> JMHO God Bless


----------



## libby

Bird Dog said:


> I quit posting awhile ago. It is a shame that, what I believe to be true Christians to get all worked up on Mary, Peter and Paul, the Eucharist and the interpertation of Scripture.  All of us should practice the beliefs of our faiths without nitpicking what we do not like about each others individual practices.
> 90 some percent of all our beliefs and concerns parallel each other, we should use that strength and common beliefs to help humankind.
> JMHO God Bless



Well, that shuts off communications with those who are actually just trying to understand one another; we do have some of those types here on the forums.  I enjoy the dialogue with them because it causes me to go deeper into my faith through research and prayer.  (Also, as a SAHM, it gives me something other that Dr. Seuss to think about!)
Just choose who you want to chat with.  Either put others on ignore, or...just ignore them.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Well, that shuts off communications with those who are actually just trying to understand one another; we do have some of those types here on the forums.  I enjoy the dialogue with them because it causes me to go deeper into my faith through research and prayer.  (Also, as a SAHM, it gives me something other that Dr. Seuss to think about!)
> Just choose who you want to chat with.  Either put others on ignore, or...just ignore them.



Good one, libby! 


When all else fails, we have the old tried and true stand-by:

Put them on ignore! 

(Ignorance is bliss it seems.... )

Here the Catholic absolves him/herself of any moral or intellectual responsibility to answer a critic of their church, even if said critic is basing his/her case on official Catholic documents on the subjective grounds that said critic is a hateful sinful bigot, plain and simple.  Period. End of Story. End of discussion.  libby has spoken. 

libby, ignore me or not, it does not matter to me. I will still continue to address any and all of your talking points about your Church's teachings.


----------



## libby

Bird Dog said:


> I quit posting awhile ago. It is a shame that, what I believe to be true Christians to get all worked up on Mary, Peter and Paul, the Eucharist and the interpertation of Scripture.  All of us should practice the beliefs of our faiths without nitpicking what we do not like about each others individual practices.
> 90 some percent of all our beliefs and concerns parallel each other, we should use that strength and common beliefs to help humankind.
> JMHO God Bless



Take note of the new thread started by Starman about cults.  Catholicism is included in a litany of theological positions with whom he disagrees.

This is why we'll never find ourselves in a situation in which we can strengthen ourselves with our common beliefs.  Starman needs to save us from our sins.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Take note of the new thread started by Starman about cults.  Catholicism is included in a litany of theological positions with whom he disagrees.
> 
> This is why we'll never find ourselves in a situation in which we can strengthen ourselves with our common beliefs.  Starman needs to save us from our sins.



Sorry, libby, the "litany of theological positions" are first and foremost in disagreement with The New Testament teachings regarding God's Plan of Salvation through the True Jesus as taught by writings of the 1st Century Disciples.

Cults teach another gospel and another Jesus.  As mentioned before, the "Jesus" of the RCC is not the New Testament Jesus if, as the Vatican claims, Mary was assumed where she is beside Him in Heaven reigning as "Queen over all things," "Advocate," "Mediatrix," etc., and if people are sent to a place called "purgatory" for further cleansing of their sins. 
IOW: The Atoning Blood of the RCC Jesus is inadequate for one's Salvation  and must be helped along by the individual efforts of parishioners who can also seek help from Mary and their patron saints.  

The RCC teachings are NOT teachings from the Holy Bible.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Bird Dog

Your Mary fixation is sick if not Freudian. You repeat the same vile statements ad nauseum. 
I think you have a mother complex that you cannot let go. 

Mary is the mother of Jesus and he loved her so.
Is your relationship with your Mother as wonderful? 
Please do not worry, as Holy as Mary is she is never going to take over Christianity.
You need to relax on Mary and worry about the souls that truly need your Spiritual graces and guidence. She is a guide you should replicate, not hate.


----------



## libby

Bird Dog said:


> Your Mary fixation is sick if not Freudian. You repeat the same vile statements ad nauseum.
> I think you have a mother complex that you cannot let go.
> 
> Mary is the mother of Jesus and he loved her so.
> Is your relationship with your Mother as wonderful?
> Please do not worry, as Holy as Mary is she is never going to take over Christianity.
> You need to relax on Mary and worry about the souls that truly need your Spiritual graces and guidence. She is a guide you should replicate, not hate.



Excellent post!


----------



## baydoll

Starman3000m said:


> Sorry, libby, the "litany of theological positions" are first and foremost in disagreement with The New Testament teachings regarding God's Plan of Salvation through the True Jesus as taught by writings of the 1st Century Disciples.
> 
> Cults teach another gospel and another Jesus.  As mentioned before, the "Jesus" of the RCC is not the New Testament Jesus if, as the Vatican claims, Mary was assumed where she is beside Him in Heaven reigning as "Queen over all things," "Advocate," "Mediatrix," etc., and if people are sent to a place called "purgatory" for further cleansing of their sins.
> IOW: The Atoning Blood of the RCC Jesus is inadequate for one's Salvation  and must be helped along by the individual efforts of parishioners who can also seek help from Mary and their patron saints.
> 
> The RCC teachings are NOT teachings from the Holy Bible.
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*





The Difference Between Catholicism and Christianity

Question: What is the difference between Catholicism and Biblical Christianity?

Answer: Catholicism and Biblical Christianity are divergent religions. They are built on different foundations, and they propose different ways of salvation.

In principle, Christianity is built solely on the Holy Scriptures, the written Word of God. The Bible is our only infallible rule of faith, being sufficient to give us the sure knowledge of the Gospel for our salvation and holiness.

Roman Catholicism demands submission of the intellect and will to the doctrines taught by the Roman magisterium (the Pope and bishops). It is claimed that the Catholic Church derives its doctrines from the "sacred deposit" found in Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. However the faithful cannot verify these doctrines by referring to the original sources. The Scriptures are inaccessible because only the magisterium is able to establish the authentic meaning. Similarly the contents of Sacred Tradition can only be known through the magisterium. Roman Catholicism is mental and spiritual slavery to the Vatican.

As expected, since the foundations are different, so also are the edifices built upon them. Christianity stands on the Gospel of God's sovereign grace. In love, God predestines His chosen ones to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ, their sole mediator. The Son became man and gave His life as a ransom to secure their freedom from sin. Being dead in sin, they are completely unable to convert ourselves or merit God's favour. Therefore God graciously grants His people repentance and faith to turn to Him and trust in Christ Jesus for salvation. Believers are accepted in Christ, solely on the merit of His righteousness and blood, and not because of any goodness or human merit. God also resides in His people by the Holy Spirit, enabling them to obey and glorify the Father, and to guarantee their inheritance in heaven forever.

Rome's "gospel" is not good news at all. The Roman institution, calling itself "The Church", usurps Christ's mediatorial office, proclaiming herself as the "sacrament of salvation." The "Church" dispenses salvation to her faithful in small portions, starting at baptism and continuing throughout life. Forgiveness can only be obtained through the sacrament of penance. The benefits of Christ's sacrifice are accessible through the sacrifice of the Mass. Instead of teaching the faithful to rest in Christ by faith, Catholics are taught to perform religious works to "merit grace" and to do penance to make satisfaction. Even after death, Catholics remains dependent on the "Church" to relieve their suffering in Purgatory by masses and indulgences.

The Roman Catholic Church is a mighty obstacle to anyone seeking salvation, enslaving millions of people to a religious system and preventing them from coming directly to Christ.

The choice is between the Bible and the Roman magisterium; the choice is between salvation by grace through faith in Christ, or through human merit and effort in the Roman religion. 


Difference between Catholicism and Christianity


----------



## baydoll

Bird Dog said:


> Your Mary fixation is sick if not Freudian. You repeat the same vile statements ad nauseum.
> I think you have a mother complex that you cannot let go.
> 
> Mary is the mother of Jesus and he loved her so.
> Is your relationship with your Mother as wonderful?
> .



Where is it in Scripture that tells us we need to *follow* Mary's guidence?

And actually we don't hate Mary at all. We love her the same as we love all our Brothers and Sisters in the church. She was blessed for sure but not blessed ABOVE everybody else as your Church claims. What we do hate is how your Church transformed this sweet humble Godly Jewish girl of the Scripture into a raging She-Goddess of Catholicism. The REAL Mary of the Bible does not resembly this Catholic Goddess *Mary* in any way shape or form and would no less be horrified as to what your Church has turned her into.  

We are 'fixated' by this subject only because of your Church's obsessive Marian doctrines which demeans Christ, degrades His sacrifice, and rob Him of the glory that is HIS alone. It has assigned to Mary attributes that only God Himself possesses. 



> You need to relax on Mary and worry about the souls that truly need your Spiritual graces and guidence. She is a guide you should replicate, not hate



Actually JESUS is my guide that I try to replicate, not Mary. He alone is Whom I turn to for my 'spiritual graces and guidence', not Mary. 

See how you just rob Christ of the glory that should be His alone?



> Please do not worry, as Holy as Mary is she is never going to take over Christianity.



Well from the looks of it on the Catholic side, 'she' already has.

(edited: spelling...)


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Take note of the new thread started by Starman about cults.  Catholicism is included in a litany of theological positions with whom he disagrees.
> 
> This is why we'll never find ourselves in a situation in which we can strengthen ourselves with our common beliefs.  Starman needs to save us from our sins.



How do you know your Church is whom it claims to be, libby?

How do you know it's not a cult? Have you ever examined it to see for yourself? Or do you just blindly accept anything it tells you?

Isn't that a classic sign of a cult?


----------



## onel0126

Zguy28 said:


> Yes, TULIP as it's commonly called. I am definitely of the Reformed tradition when it comes to theology.
> 
> Calvinism - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity
> 
> Hey, I'm just being intellectually honest.




You ever read this?

Calvin's Error of Limited Atonement


----------



## Zguy28

onel0126 said:


> You ever read this?
> 
> Calvin's Error of Limited Atonement


No, but I've read similar. I would fall into what it calls "Calvinists who are mixed up" I am not a Hyper or "strict" Calvinist. 

I more or less stopped reading once I read that and took note that the site is hosted by a 1611 King James Version only group. Have you ever noticed that those are also the guys that always make sure to put their college degree credentials after their names?


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> The Difference Between Catholicism and Christianity
> 
> Question: What is the difference between Catholicism and Biblical Christianity?
> 
> Answer: Catholicism and Biblical Christianity are divergent religions. They are built on different foundations, and they propose different ways of salvation.
> 
> In principle, Christianity is built solely on the Holy Scriptures, the written Word of God. The Bible is our only infallible rule of faith, being sufficient to give us the sure knowledge of the Gospel for our salvation and holiness.
> 
> Roman Catholicism demands submission of the intellect and will to the doctrines taught by the Roman magisterium (the Pope and bishops). It is claimed that the Catholic Church derives its doctrines from the "sacred deposit" found in Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. However the faithful cannot verify these doctrines by referring to the original sources. The Scriptures are inaccessible because only the magisterium is able to establish the authentic meaning. Similarly the contents of Sacred Tradition can only be known through the magisterium. Roman Catholicism is mental and spiritual slavery to the Vatican.
> 
> As expected, since the foundations are different, so also are the edifices built upon them. Christianity stands on the Gospel of God's sovereign grace. In love, God predestines His chosen ones to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ, their sole mediator. The Son became man and gave His life as a ransom to secure their freedom from sin. Being dead in sin, they are completely unable to convert ourselves or merit God's favour. Therefore God graciously grants His people repentance and faith to turn to Him and trust in Christ Jesus for salvation. Believers are accepted in Christ, solely on the merit of His righteousness and blood, and not because of any goodness or human merit. God also resides in His people by the Holy Spirit, enabling them to obey and glorify the Father, and to guarantee their inheritance in heaven forever.
> 
> Rome's "gospel" is not good news at all. The Roman institution, calling itself "The Church", usurps Christ's mediatorial office, proclaiming herself as the "sacrament of salvation." The "Church" dispenses salvation to her faithful in small portions, starting at baptism and continuing throughout life. Forgiveness can only be obtained through the sacrament of penance. The benefits of Christ's sacrifice are accessible through the sacrifice of the Mass. Instead of teaching the faithful to rest in Christ by faith, Catholics are taught to perform religious works to "merit grace" and to do penance to make satisfaction. Even after death, Catholics remains dependent on the "Church" to relieve their suffering in Purgatory by masses and indulgences.
> 
> The Roman Catholic Church is a mighty obstacle to anyone seeking salvation, enslaving millions of people to a religious system and preventing them from coming directly to Christ.
> 
> The choice is between the Bible and the Roman magisterium; the choice is between salvation by grace through faith in Christ, or through human merit and effort in the Roman religion.
> 
> 
> Difference between Catholicism and Christianity



Since the Reformers rejected the papacy, they also rejected the teaching authority of the Church. They looked elsewhere for the rule of faith and thought they found it solely in the Bible. Its interpretation would be left to the individual reader, guided by the Holy Spirit. But reason and experience tell us that the Bible could not have been intended as each man’s private guide to the truth. If individual guidance by the Holy Spirit were a reality, everyone would understand the same thing from the Bible—since God cannot teach error. But Christians have understood contradictory things from Scripture. Fundamentalists even differ among themselves in what they think the Bible says. 

The Bible also tells us that private interpretation is not to be the rule for understanding the Bible. Peter declares this to be a matter of prime importance, saying, "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20). Later he warns what can happen if a person ignorantly approaches Scripture on his own or is unstable in clinging to the apostolic teachings he has received. He states of Paul’s letters, "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16). Private interpretation and instability in clinging to the doctrines passed down from the apostles can thus result in one twisting the scriptures to one’s own destruction. 

The Bible also denies that it is sufficient as the Church’s rule of faith. Paul acknowledges that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). We are told that the first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42), which was the oral teaching that was given even before the New Testament was written.


----------



## Zguy28

onel0126 said:


> Since the Reformers rejected the papacy, they also rejected the teaching authority of the Church. They looked elsewhere for the rule of faith and thought they found it solely in the Bible. Its interpretation would be left to the individual reader, guided by the Holy Spirit. But reason and experience tell us that the Bible could not have been intended as each man’s private guide to the truth. If individual guidance by the Holy Spirit were a reality, everyone would understand the same thing from the Bible—since God cannot teach error. But Christians have understood contradictory things from Scripture. Fundamentalists even differ among themselves in what they think the Bible says.
> 
> The Bible also tells us that private interpretation is not to be the rule for understanding the Bible. Peter declares this to be a matter of prime importance, saying, "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20). Later he warns what can happen if a person ignorantly approaches Scripture on his own or is unstable in clinging to the apostolic teachings he has received. He states of Paul’s letters, "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16). Private interpretation and instability in clinging to the doctrines passed down from the apostles can thus result in one twisting the scriptures to one’s own destruction.
> 
> The Bible also denies that it is sufficient as the Church’s rule of faith. Paul acknowledges that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). We are told that the first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42), which was the oral teaching that was given even before the New Testament was written.



What reason or concrete evidence do you give for your belief that the Apostles teaching (or traditions) are not synonymous with the New Testament writings?


----------



## Bavarian

Zguy28 said:


> What reason or concrete evidence do you give for your belief that the Apostles teaching (or traditions) are not synonymous with the New Testament writings?



How do you know it was?


----------



## onel0126

Zguy28 said:


> What reason or concrete evidence do you give for your belief that the Apostles teaching (or traditions) are not synonymous with the New Testament writings?



Never said they weren't.


Oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19). 

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion. 

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be 
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority. 

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.


----------



## Zguy28

Bavarian said:


> How do you know it was?


 I asked first.

But I will humor you, I prefer to side with conservatism. Believing the apostle's teaching was inspired, but that later men were not and that through ignorance or malice they have twisted the pure Word taught from the apostles. So, we go to the source.


----------



## Zguy28

onel0126 said:


> Never said they weren't.


Perhaps I used the wrong word? Symmetrical may better carry the correct connotation, as in both the same, in both directions.


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> We are told that the first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42), which was the oral teaching that was given even before the New Testament was written.



The oral teachings of the Apostles, were the eye-witness accounts of their individual personal experiences with Jesus. The teachings were thereafter also recorded through the writings that began to be sent to believers in other churches that were being formed as the apostles were doing their evangelistic travels throughout the region. Those writings are what form the New Testament scriptures.

Also, the oral teachings of the Apostles never mentioned a continuation of Apostolic succession as they were appointed by Jesus to be the apostolic building blocks of the faith; Jesus being the Chief Cornerstone and the ROCK of Salvation. The Apostles were commanded by Jesus to make disciples of men (not apostles) who would then carry on the Great Commission proclaiming God's Plan of Salvation through Christ alone to the whole world.

There is no account in oral teachings nor any writings of the Apostles that ever declared Mary was going to be bodily assumed up to Heaven where she would reign alongside Jesus as "Queen over all things," "Advocate," and "Mediatrix" nor is there any teachings of the Apostles that proclaim souls are going to be further cleansed in a place called purgatory before being allowed entrance into Heaven. 

Nor is there any teaching telling believers that when the Apostles died they (the Apostles) would also be serving in Heaven answering prayers and assisting people on earth. This is the "elevated" attribute that the RCC gives to its "saints" including the soon to be "beatification" of Pope John Paul II.  

The RCC is teaching another gospel and "another Jesus" and NOT the teaching of the New Testament Gospel of Christ.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Bird Dog

Starman3000m said:


> The RCC is teaching another gospel and "another Jesus" and NOT the teaching of the New Testament Gospel of Christ.
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



You in your constant Rants state that he Catholic Church is teaching another gospel.
OK, lets start, you quote Luke 1 from your Bible and I will quote Luke 1 from mine and lets look at the difference and we will continue from there.2, 3 ,4 etc. it may take some time and may be put in another thread, but I would really like to see the difference.
Also, you and Babydoll refuse to answer one of the questions I have repeatedly asked. What about the totally lost souls in your neighborhood what are you doing for them. You only seem to want to save the Roman Catholics. I don't get it.


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> You in your constant Rants state that he Catholic Church is teaching another gospel.
> OK, lets start, you quote Luke 1 from your Bible and I will quote Luke 1 from mine and lets look at the difference and we will continue from there.2, 3 ,4 etc. it may take some time and may be put in another thread, but I would really like to see the difference.



I think we can both save some bandwidth and settle it in this thread:

In studying all 24 Chapters in the Book of Luke, I find no prophetic reference that Mary was ever going to remain a "perpetual virgin" and be "assumed bodily into Heaven" where she would then be elevated to the position of "Queen over all things," become our "Advocate" "Helper," "Benefactress" and "Mediatrix" as an assistant alongside Jesus.  The Book of Luke (like the Book of Matthew) only describes the virtues of Mary being "Blessed," highly favored and chosen by God to give birth to the Christ-Child. That was her specific role to fulfill and it was limited to that role only. Mary was not given the assignment to be an assistant to Jesus in Heaven.

If your copy of Luke states anywhere that Mary's role was going to go beyond giving birth to the Saviour of mankind, kindly post those references here.




> Also, you and Babydoll refuse to answer one of the questions I have repeatedly asked. What about the totally lost souls in your neighborhood what are you doing for them. You only seem to want to save the Roman Catholics. I don't get it.



Who are the totally lost souls in "my neighborhood" if I don't include those among the readers of this forum who are being deceived by false doctrines and teachings that are contrary to the New Testament teachings of Christ and God's Plan of Salvation through Him alone?


----------



## Bird Dog

Starman3000m said:


> If your copy of Luke states anywhere that Mary's role was going to go beyond giving birth to the Saviour of mankind, kindly post those references here.
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the totally lost souls in "my neighborhood" if I don't include those among the readers of this forum who are being deceived by false doctrines and teachings that are contrary to the New Testament teachings of Christ and God's Plan of Salvation through Him alone?



Again answer my question , outside this forum. Or do you only rant in this forum. What do you do to save souls outside this forum?
You keep saying the Roman Catholic Bible is different. I say lets start with Luke. Where is it different? Let's start with Matthew, where is it different.
You quote a verse or chapter and I will quote one.

I still believe you have a sick or Freudian problem with Mary. It is not the Roman Catholic Church that gets you.

Seek help, whether it is in the Bible or from a psychiatrist. If you truly beleive you are a disciple of Christ you should work on saving the truly lost souls not just the ones that do not believe exactly as you.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> The oral teachings of the Apostles, were the eye-witness accounts of their individual personal experiences with Jesus. The teachings were thereafter also recorded through the writings that began to be sent to believers in other churches that were being formed as the apostles were doing their evangelistic travels throughout the region. Those writings are what form the New Testament scriptures.
> 
> Also, the oral teachings of the Apostles never mentioned a continuation of Apostolic succession as they were appointed by Jesus to be the apostolic building blocks of the faith; Jesus being the Chief Cornerstone and the ROCK of Salvation. The Apostles were commanded by Jesus to make disciples of men (not apostles) who would then carry on the Great Commission proclaiming God's Plan of Salvation through Christ alone to the whole world.
> 
> There is no account in oral teachings nor any writings of the Apostles that ever declared Mary was going to be bodily assumed up to Heaven where she would reign alongside Jesus as "Queen over all things," "Advocate," and "Mediatrix" nor is there any teachings of the Apostles that proclaim souls are going to be further cleansed in a place called purgatory before being allowed entrance into Heaven.
> 
> Nor is there any teaching telling believers that when the Apostles died they (the Apostles) would also be serving in Heaven answering prayers and assisting people on earth. This is the "elevated" attribute that the RCC gives to its "saints" including the soon to be "beatification" of Pope John Paul II.
> 
> The RCC is teaching another gospel and "another Jesus" and NOT the teaching of the New Testament Gospel of Christ.
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



Nowhere, either, is there a dictate to compile all relevant teaching into a book, and that believers are to go strictly to that book for truth.  On the contrary, people are told to go to the church, because she is the "pillar and bulwark of truth".  How do you go to a church unless it is identifiable?
Resting on "believe" and you shall be saved is taking that one piece of the puzzle and looking only at that.  Believing assumes that you will do as Jesus said to do.  He said (and I'm not going to look up the passage again because I pointed it out earlier and it was ignored) that not one letter of the law would  pass away, in fact, He took the law even further.  We do have to _do _something to get into Heaven.  We have to "be perfect".  Nothing unclean shall enter Heaven.  Now clearly you think that if you died right now you would have no attachment to any sin.  Is there no sin that you cannot shake?  Guess not.  I know I'm not pure through and through, and I do not deserve to be in the presence of God Almighty.  I do believe, through the merits of Jesus Christ, I will get to see God, but not before I have been purged of my attachment to sin.  Whether purgatory is a place, or an instantaneous process is not defined.  It could happen in an instant from the earthly perspective.  
A and E were cast out of God's presence for eating a piece of fruit.  Comparatively small sin in the grand scheme of things, but they no longer deserved to be in His Paradise.  Without Jesus, neither would we be able to get to Heaven.  That does not make you completely without a call to participate.  We are a family working together that no man might be lost.


----------



## libby

> If your copy of Luke states anywhere that Mary's role was going to go beyond giving birth to the Saviour of mankind, kindly post those references here.




Okay.
1. Does your soul "magnify" the Lord?  What does it mean to "magnify"? To make bigger, or easier to see?  Hmmm...inspired by the HS Scripture tells us that Mary's soul makes the Lord easier to see.

2. The direct address from Gabriel was not, "Hail, Mary", it was "Hail, full of grace".  I've already posted the etymology of the word that was used and how it differs from St. Stephen and anywhere else in Scripture, although the points were again ignored.

3. At the presentation of Jesus in the Temple. "you yourself a sword shall pierce* so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed*"

4. Elizabeth "filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed in the fruit of your womb.  And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"  Seems like a pretty clear indication that Elizabeth thought she was not worthy to stand in Mary's presence. * Elizabeth's salutations are primarily directed at Mary*, including, "the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy".

Naturally, you will not agree that Mary is what the RCC teaches, but why don't you tell me what you do think it all means, because it certainly means a lot more that Mary is the blessed petri dish you like to think she is.


----------



## baydoll

> Since the Reformers rejected the papacy, they also rejected the teaching authority of the Church. They looked elsewhere for the rule of faith and thought they found it solely in the Bible. Its interpretation would be left to the individual reader, guided by the Holy Spirit.


Of course they rejected the papacy. The papacy is illegitimate, a fake, a fraud. It's teaching authority is a joke. It's interpretation of Scripture is fraught with out and out errors. Guided by the Holy Spirit? That's a laugh! Actually I take that back, it's not funny, it's sad. 



> But reason and experience tell us that the Bible could not have been intended as each man’s private guide to the truth.



Says who?



> If individual guidance by the Holy Spirit were a reality, everyone would understand the same thing from the Bible—since God cannot teach error. But Christians have understood contradictory things from Scripture. Fundamentalists even differ among themselves in what they think the Bible says.



Like what, for instance? Name a biblical passage that we fundies all wildly disagree with one another on.  And oh btw? Did you know your Church is guilty (actually make that extremely guilty) of what you're accusing us of? Would you like go there? Because I would be more than happy to trot out the evidence of that for you. : )


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Okay.
> 1. Does your soul "magnify" the Lord?  What does it mean to "magnify"? To make bigger, or easier to see?  Hmmm...inspired by the HS Scripture tells us that Mary's soul makes the Lord easier to see.



Yeah, the REAL Mary's soul magnified her Lord. The CATHOLIC 'Mary' magnifies herself.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Okay.
> 
> 2. The direct address from Gabriel was not, "Hail, Mary", it was "Hail, full of grace".  I've already posted the etymology of the word that was used and how it differs from St. Stephen and anywhere else in Scripture, although the points were again ignored.



They weren't ignored, we addressed it. You ignored what we told you. 

Your Church misquotes Luke. Luke was written in Greek. In John 1:14, (which is also written in Greek) our Lord is described by the evangelist as FULL of grace and truth. In the Greek the phrase is translated full of grace or pleres charitos. In the entire NT this is the ONLY use of that phrase and it pertains to the ONE (the ONLY One) Who is truly without sin (and no it isn't Mary, sorry to break your heart). 

The Greek phrase Gabriel used to address Mary is chaire kecharitomene. A literal translation of that phrase is "one who is receiving unmerited favor." Thus the KJV CORRECTLY translates John 1:14 as "Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women." 

There is simply no honest way you can get "full of grace" out of the Greek phrase chaire kecharitomene. 

The word pleres in the Greek means "filled up to the maximum" or "completely full". It has no other meaning. It is used ONCE in Scripture in reference to Jesus. It is NOT used in reference to Mary. Conclusions: She was NOT full of grace at conception. She was NOT conceived free of the Adamic nature. She is NOT the Immaculate Conception. The Catholic Church has added a whole 'nother Gospel to God's Word. 

(thanks to John Schroeder's help in the above.)


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> 3. At the presentation of Jesus in the Temple. "you yourself a sword shall pierce* so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed*"



Yeah? And the point being.....?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> 4. Elizabeth "filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed in the fruit of your womb.  And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"  Seems like a pretty clear indication that Elizabeth thought she was not worthy to stand in Mary's presence. * Elizabeth's salutations are primarily directed at Mary*, including, "the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy".



Pretty clear indication to who? You?  There you go making a sweet Godly HUMBLE Jewish girl into a rip roaring bow down and worship ME She-Goddess again. 

And notice that Elizabeth said blessed are you AMONG women, not above? If Elizabeth didn't think she was 'worthy' enough to be in Mary's Holy All-Mighty Queenly Presence, then why did she not say 'Oh blessed are thou ABOVE AND BEYOND ALL women, men, children everywhere!'?

Your Mary worship is showing again, libby.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Okay.
> 
> 
> Naturally, you will not agree that Mary is what the RCC teaches, but why don't you tell me what you do think it all means, because it certainly means a lot more that Mary is the blessed petri dish you like to think she is.



Of course we don't agree with what your Church teaches because what your Church teaches is clearly wrong, libby. As well as not biblical. And blasphemous to boot. 

And of course Mary was blessed. She was the mother of Jesus, for heaven's sake! But that doesn't give your Church the right to transform the poor woman into a raging Goddess, libby. 

She wasn't the only one who was blessed by Jesus. We all are.


----------



## libby

Apparently it is necessary to repeat my request:

*but why don't you tell me what you do think it all means*

as opposed to just bashing that with which one does not agree.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Nowhere, either, is there a dictate to compile all relevant teaching into a book, and that believers are to go strictly to that book for truth.  On the contrary, people are told to go to the church, because she is the "pillar and bulwark of truth".  How do you go to a church unless it is identifiable?



How do you know your Church is truly whom it claims to be? You have yet to disclose this to us ignorant fundies.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Apparently it is necessary to repeat my request:
> 
> *but why don't you tell me what you do think it all means*
> 
> as opposed to just bashing that with which one does not agree.



I thought I just did?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Resting on "believe" and you shall be saved is taking that one piece of the puzzle and looking only at that.  Believing assumes that you will do as Jesus said to do.  He said (and I'm not going to look up the passage again because I pointed it out earlier and it was ignored) that not one letter of the law would  pass away, in fact, He took the law even further.  We do have to _do _something to get into Heaven.  We have to "be perfect".  Nothing unclean shall enter Heaven.  Now clearly you think that if you died right now you would have no attachment to any sin.  Is there no sin that you cannot shake?  Guess not.  I know I'm not pure through and through, and I do not deserve to be in the presence of God Almighty.  I do believe, through the merits of Jesus Christ, I will get to see God, but not before I have been purged of my attachment to sin.  Whether purgatory is a place, or an instantaneous process is not defined.  It could happen in an instant from the earthly perspective.
> A and E were cast out of God's presence for eating a piece of fruit.  Comparatively small sin in the grand scheme of things, but they no longer deserved to be in His Paradise.  Without Jesus, neither would we be able to get to Heaven.  That does not make you completely without a call to participate.  We are a family working together that no man might be lost.




How does one become "perfect" libby? What did Jesus or His Apostles say about that? 

And what did Jesus or His Apostles have to say about Purgatory?

Purgatory is a holding place for unsaved catholics for eternity.. aka hell. Oh yeah.. you will have your sins purged by fire for all eternity.


----------



## Bavarian

This discussion runs in circles for many reasons.  One the Protestants have an abridged Bible, only 66 books not all 72.  They have different translations.  If a part of scripture did not agree with the idea of saved by faith alone, Epistle of St. Timothy, Luther had it suppressed.  Trying to get through to these people is like talking to a brick wall.  Even when we show them biblical quotations to prove our point, they always whip out their last ditch argument that the Bible translation is wrong.  Therefore, no reasoning with people like Starman or Italien Stalion, (Sly Stalone?) is possible.


----------



## libby

Bavarian said:


> This discussion runs in circles for many reasons.  One the Protestants have an abridged Bible, only 66 books not all 72.  They have different translations.  If a part of scripture did not agree with the idea of saved by faith alone, Epistle of St. Timothy, Luther had it suppressed.  Trying to get through to these people is like talking to a brick wall.  Even when we show them biblical quotations to prove our point, they always whip out their last ditch argument that the Bible translation is wrong.  Therefore, no reasoning with people like Starman or Italien Stalion, (Sly Stalone?) is possible.



Not true of all Protestants, Bavarian; there are some on here that are truly having a thoughtful discussion.  Don't paint with such a broad brush.


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> Purgatory is a holding place for unsaved catholics for eternity.. aka hell. Oh yeah.. you will have your sins purged by fire for all eternity.



You truly are a piece of work.  You pop in here, throw out statements like the above one, get grilled by a fellow Protestant, apologize to everyone, and then do it all again.  The epitome of OSAS--You can act unbiblically but its all good.....


----------



## Zguy28

onel0126 said:


> You truly are a piece of work.  You pop in here, throw out statements like the above one, get grilled by a fellow Protestant, apologize to everyone, and then do it all again.  The epitome of OSAS--You can act like unbiblically but its all good.....


At least she acknowledged some Catholics are saved...


----------



## onel0126

Zguy28 said:


> At least she acknowledged some Catholics are saved...



How magnanimous of her.....


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> Like what, for instance? Name a biblical passage that we fundies all wildly disagree with one another on.



OK, Matt 16:18 for one.  Just the either day we debated this.  Some Protestants agreed Peter is the rock, you and others didn't.


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> OK, Matt 16:18 for one.  Just the either day we debated this.  Some Protestants agreed Peter is the rock, you and others didn't.



Peter was "rock" with a lower case "r" while Jesus is *THE ROCK *that the Gospel Truth is based upon.  There were many verses cited from scripture that proclaim Jesus as being the Rock of Salvation, the Chief Cornerstone.

In likely fashion, the RCC takes the Glory that belongs to Jesus and hands it off to another person.

The RCC is preaching another gospel and another "Jesus" and NOT the Gospel of the New Testament Jesus.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## onel0126

This thread must really be getting to me.  I had a dream last night that I passed this church sign on the way home from Mass.


----------



## Zguy28

onel0126 said:


> How magnanimous of her.....


Sometimes you've got to take what you can get.


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> This thread must really be getting to me.  I had a dream last night that I passed this church sign on the way home from Mass.



Cool! Did you get a chance to read the church bulletin? 
______________________________________________

*All Are Welcome.*

*The Truth is Free!*

- Come as you are; 
- No one is ever turned away;
- Fellowship Hours 24/7; 
- No money ever collected, nor accepted;
- Interactive Question & Answer period

(John 14:6)

*There Is Only One Truth.*

_________________________________________________


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Peter was "rock" with a lower case "r" while Jesus is *THE ROCK *that the Gospel Truth is based upon.  There were many verses cited from scripture that proclaim Jesus as being the Rock of Salvation, the Chief Cornerstone.
> 
> In likely fashion, the RCC takes the Glory that belongs to Jesus and hands it off to another person.
> 
> The RCC is preaching another gospel and another "Jesus" and NOT the Gospel of the New Testament Jesus.
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



Y'know SM, it's the RCC Jesus of your imagination that is NOT the Gospel Jesus.  
Catholics most certainly do understand that Peter is a "lower case r" and the Christ is the biggie.
We most certainly do not glory to anyone but God; like anyone who may have praised Mother Theresa and her efforts for the poor; she would remind them that she is only the pencil, but that God is the author/artist or whatever.

The children of God are supposed to be a family, and I mean that quite literally.  And just like when my little children want to "help" me, I will happily accept their efforts and recognize it for what it is, a child who loves me and is trying to please me. Does that mean I can't do the dishes myself?  Does anyone think that I need that child to get my work done?  Am I jealous that someone might think that my daughter swept the floor instead of giving credit to me?  Of course not.  How shallow and ridiculous!
It is a further reflection of my good relationship with my children that they want to do these "works" to help me.
The same with God.  We are like little children with our pathetic efforts to bring the whole world to Him.  Could He do it alone by just willing it?  Yep.  But giving us the free will to love Him and help Him shows our love for Him.  He is up their smiling that knowing parental smile at our little efforts, and He is pleased.
The God you preach is angry and jealous and petty, stomping up and down saying, "No, it was ME, ME, ME!"


----------



## baydoll

Bavarian said:


> This discussion runs in circles for many reasons.  One the Protestants have an abridged Bible, only 66 books not all 72.  They have different translations.  If a part of scripture did not agree with the idea of saved by faith alone, Epistle of St. Timothy, Luther had it suppressed.  Trying to get through to these people is like talking to a brick wall.  Even when we show them biblical quotations to prove our point, they always whip out their last ditch argument that the Bible translation is wrong.  Therefore, no reasoning with people like Starman or Italien Stalion, (Sly Stalone?) is possible.



Which biblical quotations would that be?


----------



## baydoll

Me: Purgatory is a holding place for unsaved catholics for eternity.. aka hell. Oh yeah.. you will have your sins purged by fire for all eternity. 



> You truly are a piece of work. You pop in here, throw out statements like the above one, get grilled by a fellow Protestant, apologize to everyone, and then do it all again. The epitome of OSAS--You can act unbiblically but its all good.....



How do you know that statement is false (without resorting to Because my Church is the One True Church and the Pillar of Truth, that's why) ?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Not true of all Protestants, Bavarian; there are some on here that are truly having a thoughtful discussion.  Don't paint with such a broad brush.



I could say the same thing about Catholics; there are some (I haven't found any on here yet though) that are truly having a thoughtful discussion. Some who don't paint with such a broad brush (like you wouldn't do that, now would you...) 

 YOU should try taking your own advice for a change, libby.


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> How magnanimous of her.....



So are you saved, onel0126?


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> OK, Matt 16:18 for one.  Just the either day we debated this.  Some Protestants agreed Peter is the rock, you and others didn't.



And do all Catholics agree with one another on Scripture interpretations, yes or no?


----------



## baydoll

Starman3000m said:


> Peter was "rock" with a lower case "r" while Jesus is *THE ROCK *that the Gospel Truth is based upon.  There were many verses cited from scripture that proclaim Jesus as being the Rock of Salvation, the Chief Cornerstone.
> 
> In likely fashion, the RCC takes the Glory that belongs to Jesus and hands it off to another person.
> 
> The RCC is preaching another gospel and another "Jesus" and NOT the Gospel of the New Testament Jesus.
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Y'know SM, it's the RCC Jesus of your imagination that is NOT the Gospel Jesus.
> Catholics most certainly do understand that Peter is a "lower case r" and the Christ is the biggie.
> We most certainly do not glory to anyone but God; like anyone who may have praised Mother Theresa and her efforts for the poor; she would remind them that she is only the pencil, but that God is the author/artist or whatever.
> 
> The children of God are supposed to be a family, and I mean that quite literally.  And just like when my little children want to "help" me, I will happily accept their efforts and recognize it for what it is, a child who loves me and is trying to please me. Does that mean I can't do the dishes myself?  Does anyone think that I need that child to get my work done?  Am I jealous that someone might think that my daughter swept the floor instead of giving credit to me?  Of course not.  How shallow and ridiculous!
> It is a further reflection of my good relationship with my children that they want to do these "works" to help me.
> The same with God.  We are like little children with our pathetic efforts to bring the whole world to Him.  Could He do it alone by just willing it?  Yep.  But giving us the free will to love Him and help Him shows our love for Him.  *He is up their smiling that knowing parental smile at our little efforts, and He is pleased.*The God you preach is angry and jealous and petty, stomping up and down saying, "No, it was ME, ME, ME!"



How do you know God is up there with that "knowing parental smile" at our "little efforts" and that He is "pleased"?


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Y'know SM, it's the RCC Jesus of your imagination that is NOT the Gospel Jesus.
> Catholics most certainly do understand that Peter is a "lower case r" and the Christ is the biggie.
> We most certainly do not glory to anyone but God; like anyone who may have praised Mother Theresa and her efforts for the poor; she would remind them that she is only the pencil, but that God is the author/artist or whatever.
> 
> The children of God are supposed to be a family, and I mean that quite literally.  And just like when my little children want to "help" me, I will happily accept their efforts and recognize it for what it is, a child who loves me and is trying to please me. Does that mean I can't do the dishes myself?  Does anyone think that I need that child to get my work done?  Am I jealous that someone might think that my daughter swept the floor instead of giving credit to me?  Of course not.  How shallow and ridiculous!
> It is a further reflection of my good relationship with my children that they want to do these "works" to help me.
> The same with God.  We are like little children with our pathetic efforts to bring the whole world to Him.  Could He do it alone by just willing it?  Yep.  But giving us the free will to love Him and help Him shows our love for Him.  He is up their smiling that knowing parental smile at our little efforts, and He is pleased.
> The God you preach is angry and jealous and petty, stomping up and down saying, "No, it was ME, ME, ME!"



Which God is it that loves you, your family and all mankind so much that He sent His Only Begotten Son to be offered as a sacrifice for your sins and mine?  (John 3:14-21)

Which God is it that patiently calls mankind to come out of the secular and religious deceptions of this world to know His Truth that sets you free? (2 Peter 3:9)

Yes, the Holy Bible proclaims that God is a "jealous God" and He will not allow His Glory nor credit for Salvation to be given to any other. (Deuteronomy 5:9)

*The price* that God paid for you and this whole world should be convincing enought for you to know that it was HE who did this and it is He should be given honor and praise; not Mary, nor the "saints" nor anyone else.

I love you dearly libby, but the truth is, Mary is *NOT* reigning in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Advocate," "Helper," Benefactress," "Mediatrixr," nor is she "assisting souls" so that they can get into Heaven.  That is a deceptive teaching of the RCC

God's Plan of Salvation was through the work of Jesus Christ alone, the Son of The Living God who offered His LIfe so that others may live.  To Jesus Christ, the Risen Lord, be the glory forever - no one and nothing else.



> John 10, verses:
> 
> 14: *I am the good shepherd*, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
> 15: As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
> 16: And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
> 17: Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
> 18: No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


----------



## Bavarian

baydoll said:


> Me: Purgatory is a holding place for unsaved catholics for eternity.. aka hell. Oh yeah.. you will have your sins purged by fire for all eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that statement is false (without resorting to Because my Church is the One True Church and the Pillar of Truth, that's why) ?



Purgatory does not last for eternity.  Many souls are released from Purgatory by God after they have been purified.  The time in Purgatory can and will be shortened by prayers of The Church Militant, here on Earth.  In any case, all souls will be released from Purgatory and enter Heaven at the end of the World.

Believe it or not at yours and your loved ones peril.


----------



## Zguy28

Bavarian said:


> Purgatory does not last for eternity.  Many souls are released from Purgatory by God after they have been purified.  The time in Purgatory can and will be shortened by prayers of The Church Militant, here on Earth.  In any case, all souls will be released from Purgatory and enter Heaven at the end of the World.
> 
> Believe it or not at yours and your loved ones peril.


I prefer to take the word of the Word Jesus Christ when He says "I know my sheep. And nobody will snatch them out of my hand."

Blessed Assurance!


----------



## Starman3000m

Bavarian said:


> Purgatory does not last for eternity.  Many souls are released from Purgatory by God after they have been purified.  The time in Purgatory can and will be shortened by prayers of The Church Militant, here on Earth.  In any case, all souls will be released from Purgatory and enter Heaven at the end of the World.
> 
> Believe it or not at yours and your loved ones peril.



Yes, according to the RCC the more faithful you are to the "sacraments" the less time you spend in "purgatory."  Sorry, That is Not True!

According to the Holy Bible, there is no purgatory and there is nothing you can personally do for the soul of any person who has passed on.

"Purgatory" is another misguided teaching conjured up by the RCC that gives a false sense of security that "good Catholics" can clean things up with God in a "Spiritual Half-Way House after they die.  That is NOT TRUE.  According to the Holy Bible your sins are completely forgiven in the here and now through acknowleging your personal sinful imperfections,  Repentance of those sins and placing complete faith in the Atoning Blood of Christ for Salvation.  Not by our works but by *His Work* on the cross.

According to the Holy Bible, a believers salvation is sealed in the here and now. That means that when you die, you die as a forgiven soul saved by having placed faith in Christ alone or you die as a lost soul who thought he/she could make it on their own with the help of others apart from Christ.

The Truth is, Mary was not assumed up to Heaven, where she reigns as "Queen of Heaven," "Helper," "Advocate," "Benefactress," "Mediatrix," nor is she capable of helping souls get into Heaven as you have been taught.

The RCC is teaching another gospel and another "Jesus" and another way to try to gain Salvation that is not taught in the Holy Bible.

God calls all people to repent (turn away) from their sins and place faith in Christ alone as the Only Lord and Saviour. Confess your sins to Christ alone, ask Him to forgive your sins and trust in God's Promise that by faith your sins will be cleansed once and for all through the Atoning Blood of Christ.  Ask Him to make you a new person, filled with the promise of His Holy Spirit that will come into your life so that you may become a born again Child of God and live your life for Him in the here and now.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> I prefer to take the word of the Word Jesus Christ when He says "I know my sheep. And nobody will snatch them out of my hand."
> 
> Blessed Assurance!



Zguy, Catholicism would say the same thing; we would never say that anyone can "snatch" salvation from us.  But do you think we can reject the gift?  Do you believe that a person might believe, but then willfully do what he/she knows is in opposition to God's will?
I've used this example before because it is relevant to me.  I wonder what would happen to my faith if something happened to my family in some tremendous tragedy.  Let's say all of my children and dh were in a horrific car wreck while I was home alone getting dinner ready?  Do I feel certain that I would never get so angry at God and walk away from him?  Nope, can't say that I am.  Part of my daily prayer is that I love Him above all things, including my family.  But that's all well and good until my feet are held to the fire.
Obviously, in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy I believe we do not have full consent of the will, but once my grief had subsided and I was thinking clearly again and I choose to reject all that Christ has asked, have I lost salvation?  Would you say I'd never had it?


----------



## Zguy28

libby said:


> Zguy, Catholicism would say the same thing; we would never say that anyone can "snatch" salvation from us.  But do you think we can reject the gift?  Do you believe that a person might believe, but then willfully do what he/she knows is in opposition to God's will?
> I've used this example before because it is relevant to me.  I wonder what would happen to my faith if something happened to my family in some tremendous tragedy.  Let's say all of my children and dh were in a horrific car wreck while I was home alone getting dinner ready?  Do I feel certain that I would never get so angry at God and walk away from him?  Nope, can't say that I am.  Part of my daily prayer is that I love Him above all things, including my family.  But that's all well and good until my feet are held to the fire.
> Obviously, in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy I believe we do not have full consent of the will, but once my grief had subsided and I was thinking clearly again and I choose to reject all that Christ has asked, have I lost salvation?  Would you say I'd never had it?


If you are a disciple of God, that is the seed that fell on good soil, you will be preserved by God. Many people apply the parable of the lost sheep to unbelievers being saved. I do not. I apply to God's children who may for a time, wander away. God, like the shepherd, chases after His own and reclaims them for His glory.

If you belong to Him, He will preserve you to salvation.


----------



## baydoll

Bavarian said:


> Purgatory does not last for eternity.  Many souls are released from Purgatory by God after they have been purified.  The time in Purgatory can and will be shortened by prayers of The Church Militant, here on Earth.  In any case, all souls will be released from Purgatory and enter Heaven at the end of the World.
> 
> Believe it or not at yours and your loved ones peril.



Responding in next post...clicked button too soon....


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> If you are a disciple of God, that is the seed that fell on good soil, you will be preserved by God. Many people apply the parable of the lost sheep to unbelievers being saved. I do not. I apply to God's children who may for a time, wander away. God, like the shepherd, chases after His own and reclaims them for His glory.
> 
> If you belong to Him, He will preserve you to salvation.



Sure God pursues them, but are they not free to reject Him?


----------



## Zguy28

libby said:


> Sure God pursues them, but are they not free to reject Him?


For a time, according to God's patience. But not forever. He chases His sheep. How does that old hymn go again? 

Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine!
      Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine!
      Heir of salvation, purchase of God,
      Born of His Spirit, washed in His blood.
          * Refrain:
            This is my story, this is my song,
            Praising my Savior all the day long;
            This is my story, this is my song,
            Praising my Savior all the day long.
Perfect submission, perfect delight,
      Visions of rapture now burst on my sight;
      Angels, descending, bring from above
      Echoes of mercy, whispers of love.
Perfect submission, all is at rest,
      I in my Savior am happy and blest,
      Watching and waiting, looking above,
      Filled with His goodness, lost in His love.


----------



## baydoll

Bavarian said:


> Purgatory does not last for eternity.  Many souls are released from Purgatory by God after they have been purified.  The time in Purgatory can and will be shortened by prayers of The Church Militant, here on Earth.  In any case, all souls will be released from Purgatory and enter Heaven at the end of the World.



Firstly, we are not 'cleansed' by some alleged fire of purgatory but by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:14). Jesus Himself is the porpitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2). It is through Jesus' work on the cross that we are made righteous (2 Corinthians 5:21). It is through this wonderful work of Christ on the cross, not through some mythical fires of purgatory that believers are made 'blameless' and hence are in no need of some alleged purgatory...see Jude 1:24 and also Ephesians 1:4. 

"For by ONE offering He has PERFECTED FOR ALL TIMES those who ARE sanctified" Hebrews 10:14 emp. added. 

In other words, no further 'purging' is necessary because Christ has perfected for ALL TIME those who have believed in Him. That which is ALREADY PERFECT for all time needs no further purging. 

There is no need for purgatory for those who have truly trusted in Christ as Savior. You have been badly deceived by your Church, Bavarian. 

Secondly, sorry but your church teaches that those souls in Purgatory are guaranteed eternal life and Heaven....whether you pray for them or not. So apparently you and your 'Church Militant' are wasting your time. 

Lastly did you know that it wasn't made an 'article of faith' until AD 1348 and that it was unknown to the apostolic church? That NONE of the Apostles (nor the Lord Jesus) ever taught it? Is it unfair to question where in eternity all those souls went who died BEFORE purgatory was 'added' in? 



> lieve it or not at yours and your loved ones peril.



Actually it is you and your loved ones who are at peril, my friend.

I have more to add but unexpected company just popped in so I will have to respond later. Have a great day everyone!


----------



## Bird Dog

onel0126 said:


> This thread must really be getting to me.  I had a dream last night that I passed this church sign on the way home from Mass.



The Church of Starman---------) coming to a strip mall near you.

Only the saved may attend, the rest ......just go to hell.


----------



## Zguy28

Bird Dog said:


> The Church of Starman---------) coming to a strip mall near you.
> 
> Only the saved may attend, the rest ......just go to hell.


Do you believe God only resides in certain types of buildings such as brick church buildings that are over 100 years old?


----------



## Bavarian

Zguy28 said:


> Do you believe God only resides in certain types of buildings such as brick church buildings that are over 100 years old?



He resides in the Tabernacles of all the Churches in the World, by Church, I mean those which are true Churches, they have priests who were ordained by the laying on of hands by bishops tracing back to the Original 12 Apostles and hence God.  That means Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.  

He is physically present in the form of Bread which is His Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Other 
churches" are Ecclesiastical Communities.  QED


----------



## libby

Bavarian said:


> He resides in the Tabernacles of all the Churches in the World, by Church, I mean those which are true Churches, they have priests who were ordained by the laying on of hands by bishops tracing back to the Original 12 Apostles and hence God.  That means Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
> 
> He is physically present in the form of Bread which is His Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
> 
> Other
> churches" are Ecclesiastical Communities.  QED



Bavarian,
You're not behaving any differently from SM.  Please try to listen and answer their questions about the Church; the depths of the beauty of the RCC teachings display the depths of the love and mercy of God.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Bird Dog said:


> The Church of Starman---------) coming to a strip mall near you. Only the saved may attend, the rest ......just go to hell.


I honestly thought I was done with this thread...
Bird Dog, Is your eternal future worth being left to chance?
Jesus said the same things we're saying here, to the people of His time. THEY said the same things that YOU are saying! They didn't like His narrow minded approach (especially the Jews) so they killed Him. Should He have just said: get there any way you want?  IT'S THAT SERIOUS DUDE!


----------



## Bird Dog

Zguy28 said:


> Do you believe God only resides in certain types of buildings such as brick church buildings that are over 100 years old?



Of course not.  It just that evangelicals are turning religion into a Starbucks  type of commerce. No organization and they each teach their own gospel. Each one the church of what be happening now, with their very own internet special preacher license.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> The God you preach is angry and jealous and petty, stomping up and down saying, "No, it was ME, ME, ME!"



I really wanted to expound on this further yesterday but my day was just too busy and I was unable to. 

libby, God IS a jealous God. He has every right to be jealous. He DIED for you, libby. Mary did not. He said He would share His glory with no other not because He is a mean ogre but because He alone is All Mighty Holy God and He alone deserves that worship.  



> Isaiah 42:8 NKJV
> 8 I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.





> Exodus 20:5 NKJV
> you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,





> Exodus 34:14 NKJV
> (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),





> Deuteronomy 4:24 NKJV
> For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.





> Joshua 24:19 NKJV
> But Joshua said to the people, "You cannot serve the Lord, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.




God does get angry but it's always with a RIGHTEOUS anger, libby:



> Deuteronomy 9:8 NKJV
> Also in Horeb you provoked the Lord to wrath, so that the Lord was angry enough with you to have destroyed you.





> Deuteronomy 9:19 NKJV
> For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure with which the Lord was angry with you, to destroy you. But the Lord listened to me at that time also.





> Joshua 22:18 NKJV
> but that you must turn away this day from following the Lord? And it shall be, if you rebel today against the Lord, that tomorrow He will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel.





> 2 Samuel 22:8 NKJV
> "Then the earth shook and trembled; The foundations of heaven quaked and were shaken, Because He was angry.





> Psalm 7:11 NKJV
> God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day.





> Isaiah 12:1 NKJV
> And in that day you will say: "O Lord, I will praise You; Though You were angry with me, Your anger is turned away, and You comfort me.





> Isaiah 57:16 NKJV
> For I will not contend forever, Nor will I always be angry; For the spirit would fail before Me, And the souls which I have made.





> John 2:15 NLT
> Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He drove out the sheep and oxen, scattered the money changers' coins over the floor, and turned over their tables.





> Mark 3:5 (NIV84)
> 5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored.




As for a petty God, how on earth can you say such a thing?! How on earth can you call Someone who sent His only Son to die a horrible death for YOU PERSONALLY petty? If anything, He is a LOVING COMPASSIONATE CARING LONGSUFFERING God. You are showing your 'fruits', libby. You care more about defending Mary (a mere creature of God) more than you do God. You know how much you are demeaning God by doing this, libby? This is a HUGE no-no. This is what got the Jews in trouble all through the OT and the New. You are doing the exact same thing as them!  They did not fear God, you do not fear God. They did not take God seriously, neither do you take God seriously. They worshipped the creature or creatures instead of the Creator Who alone made them and gave them their life, you worship the creatures (mary, the saints, your priests, your pope) instead of the Creator Who alone gave you life. Don't piss off the All Mighty God less you fall under His Wrath, libby. Seriously! 



> It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God! Hebrews 10:31




As for stomping up and down screaming ME ME ME, do you dare to compare God to a CHILD having a temper tantrum? Are you out of your freaking mind?! Have you no fear of God?! What has your Church been teaching you, libby? Whatever it is, it is horribly HORRIBLY wrong. 

Nothing could be further than the truth.

Change your ways before it's too late. 



> Psalm 2:12 NKJV
> Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Bird Dog said:


> It just that evangelicals are turning religion into a Starbucks  type of commerce. No organization and they each teach their own gospel. Each one the church of what be happening now, with their very own internet special preacher license.


"No organization"??? You should now realize that this is why we MUST have ONE standard of absolute spiritual truth, from God, not a denomination...


----------



## baydoll

Bird Dog said:


> Of course not.  It just that evangelicals are turning religion into a Starbucks  type of commerce. No organization and they each teach their own gospel. Each one the church of what be happening now, with their very own internet special preacher license.



Oh but that doesn't happen in the Roman Catholic Church, now does it...


----------



## baydoll

Bird Dog said:


> The Church of Starman---------) coming to a strip mall near you.
> 
> Only the saved may attend, the rest ......just go to hell.



The Roman Catholic Cult---

Only the saved may attend, the rest, well, just go to hell: 





> "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the church, a pilgrim now on earth, it is necessary for salvation: (Catechism of the Catholic Church; #846, Page 224.)





> "Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins." (Papal Bull UNAM SANCTUM, Pope Boniface VIII, November 18, 1302)



Everyone except the Muslims. 



> "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God..."
> Catechism of the Catholic Church; #841, Page 223



So the Muslims get in but those horrid fundies don't. Oh hell yeah....that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## baydoll

Bavarian said:


> He resides in the Tabernacles of all the Churches in the World, by Church, I mean those which are true Churches, they have priests who were ordained by the laying on of hands* by bishops tracing back to the Original 12 Apostles *and hence God.  That means Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
> 
> QED



Oh? Do you have evidence of this?


----------



## baydoll

Bavarian said:


> He resides in the Tabernacles of all the Churches in the World, by Church,* I mean those which are true Churches*, .  QED



And you know this how?

Without resorting to the usual because they said so, thank you. : )


----------



## baydoll

Bavarian said:


> He is physically present in the form of Bread which is His Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
> 
> QED



Bavarian, is there any miracle that took place in the Bible that did not actually change into something else entirely? 

I'm thinking water into wine sort of thing...


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Zguy, Catholicism would say the same thing; we would never say that anyone can "snatch" salvation from us.  But do you think we can reject the gift?  Do you believe that a person might believe, but then willfully do what he/she knows is in opposition to God's will?
> I've used this example before because it is relevant to me.  I wonder what would happen to my faith if something happened to my family in some tremendous tragedy.  Let's say all of my children and dh were in a horrific car wreck while I was home alone getting dinner ready?  Do I feel certain that I would never get so angry at God and walk away from him?  Nope, can't say that I am.  Part of my daily prayer is that I love Him above all things, including my family.  But that's all well and good until my feet are held to the fire.
> Obviously, in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy I believe we do not have full consent of the will, but once my grief had subsided and I was thinking clearly again and I choose to reject all that Christ has asked, have I lost salvation?  Would you say I'd never had it?




Do YOU believe one can lose their salvation if they were truly saved, libby?


----------



## baydoll

Zguy28 said:


> I prefer to take the word of the Word Jesus Christ when He says "I know my sheep. And nobody will snatch them out of my hand."
> 
> Blessed Assurance!



Amen.


----------



## baydoll

Zguy28 said:


> If you are a disciple of God, that is the seed that fell on good soil, you will be preserved by God. Many people apply the parable of the lost sheep to unbelievers being saved. I do not. I apply to God's children who may for a time, wander away. God, like the shepherd, chases after His own and reclaims them for His glory.
> 
> If you belong to Him, He will preserve you to salvation.



Amen again. : )


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Sure God pursues them, but are they not free to reject Him?



If they are truly saved they won't. They are 'kept' by the power of God. NO ONE can snatch them out of the Father's Hand, libby. NO ONE. That NO ONE includes you or me.


----------



## Bird Dog

ItalianScallion said:


> "No organization"??? You should now realize that this is why we MUST have ONE standard of absolute spiritual truth, from God, not a denomination...



Which strip mall do hang out on Sunday's. Maybe I will join you and we can go to the thrift store after.

Your preachers are only looking to get enough suckers, then open a Mega church, buy ther Rolexs and a Mercedes.


Sorry Libby, your posts are much more spiritual, but I am tired of these new aged preachers slamming the Catholic Church.

They come out of the gutter claiming to have found God and condemn us to Hell, because they have found a better way than our families
Have been practicing for 2,000 years


----------



## baydoll

Bird Dog said:


> Which strip mall do hang out on Sunday's. Maybe I will join you and we can go to the thrift store after.
> 
> Your preachers are only looking to get enough suckers, then open a Mega church, buy ther Rolexs and a Mercedes.
> 
> 
> Sorry Libby, your posts are much more spiritual, but I am tired of these new aged preachers slamming the Catholic Church.
> 
> They come out of the gutter claiming to have found God and condemn us to Hell, because they have found a better way than our families
> Have been practicing for 2,000 years



How do you know what you've been 'practicing' for 2,000 years is the correct one?


----------



## Bird Dog

baydoll said:


> How do you know what you've been 'practicing' for 2,000 years is the correct one?



If my choice is the strip mall down the street, statrted  by an evangelical who just stopped , "stealing, drugging, whoring, drinking," and an church that I truly believe in and has passed the test of time, through Scripture, beleif in  Jesus Christ, not some nouveau Bilbe thumping evangelical I will pick my religion which is Roman Catholic, or even any of the Protestant religion over my new strip mall neighbor.


----------



## baydoll

Bird Dog said:


> If my choice is the strip mall down the street, statrted  by an evangelical who just stopped , "stealing, drugging, whoring, drinking," and an church that I truly believe in and has passed the test of time, through Scripture, beleif in  Jesus Christ, not some nouveau Bilbe thumping evangelical I will pick my religion which is Roman Catholic, or even any of the Protestant religion over my new strip mall neighbor.



Still did not answer my question Bird Dog. Asking this again:

How do you know your Church is whom it claims to be?


----------



## Bird Dog

baydoll said:


> Still did not answer my question Bird Dog. Asking this again:
> 
> How do you know your Church is whom it claims to be?



I believe and also unlike you and the other evangelical wackos, that you are truly saved because you believe.  Jesus said I am the way as  you and others have stated and believe. My God is a merciful God not a jealous and angry God.
May God bless you.


----------



## baydoll

Bird Dog said:


> I believe and also unlike you and the other evangelical wackos, that you are truly saved because you believe.  Jesus said I am the way as  you and others have stated and believe. My God is a merciful God not a jealous and angry God.
> May God bless you.



Are you Catholic?


----------



## Bird Dog

baydoll said:


> Are you Catholic?



Please read post 382 and about a dozen others instead of trolling around, then spouting off your anti Catholic rants and false prophet theories


----------



## Zguy28

Bird Dog said:


> If my choice is the strip mall down the street, statrted  by an evangelical who just stopped , "stealing, drugging, whoring, drinking," and an church that I truly believe in and *has passed the test of time,* through Scripture, beleif in  Jesus Christ, not some nouveau Bilbe thumping evangelical I will pick my religion which is Roman Catholic, or even any of the Protestant religion over my new strip mall neighbor.


I'm not so sure you should be proud of some of that history and the people involved. Unless you agree with strangling and burning men at the stake for translating the bible into English so everybody can read it (William Tyndale). Or do you think baptists should be beheaded or tortured or drowned for our belief in Believer's Baptism? How about the Amish or Mennonites? Do you want to go persecute them?

Your Roman Catholic brethren throughout history have, God forgive them. 



Bird Dog said:


> I believe and also unlike you and the other evangelical wackos, that you are truly saved because you believe.  Jesus said I am the way as  you and others have stated and believe. My God is a merciful God not a jealous and angry God.
> May God bless you.


An insult followed by condescension. Nice.

Lord, do not hold this sin against them.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Bird Dog said:


> Which strip mall do hang out on Sunday's. Maybe I will join you and we can go to the thrift store after. Your preachers are only looking to get enough suckers, then open a Mega church, buy ther Rolexs and a Mercedes. They come out of the gutter claiming to have found God and condemn us to Hell, because they have found a better way than our families Have been practicing for 2,000 years


My "strip mall" on Sunday is Red Robin, California, @ 11:30am. I'll be the one sitting at the bar telling everyone to repent. Well; I'll be sitting at the bar having lunch anyway...See you tomorrow? Are you a guy or gal? Ask for me by name (screen name)...I'm serious!

"Open a mega church"? Mercedes? Rolex's? I drive a 7 year old car and do not wear any jewelry. Wouldn't want anyone to think I'm doing well in this economy; they might tax me more... 

But seriously Bird Dog, you've obviously been hurt by some bad church folks (or you've been watching too many TV evangelists). All the more reason to search for the truth in all it's glory and don't let pride & tradition (2,000 years worth apparently) get in your way.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Bird Dog said:


> If my choice is the strip mall down the street, statrted  by an evangelical who just stopped , "stealing, drugging, whoring, drinking," and an church that I truly believe in and has passed the test of time, through Scripture, beleif in  Jesus Christ, not some nouveau Bilbe thumping evangelical I will pick my religion which is Roman Catholic, or even any of the Protestant religion over my new strip mall neighbor.


Jesus was a Scripture (Bible) thumper. You're contradicting yourself again.


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> I'm not so sure you should be proud of some of that history and the people involved. Unless you agree with strangling and burning men at the stake for translating the bible into English so everybody can read it (William Tyndale). Or do you think baptists should be beheaded or tortured or drowned for our belief in Believer's Baptism? How about the Amish or Mennonites? Do you want to go persecute them?
> 
> Your Roman Catholic brethren throughout history have, God forgive them.
> 
> An insult followed by condescension. Nice.
> 
> Lord, do not hold this sin against them.



I think all denominations have persecuted and been persecuted.  And while some here might not claim a denomination, plenty of people who are sola scriptura have fallen and committed horrendous crimes, as well, although I suppose they are not as easily identifiable because their religion is their own.
Also, if we want to talk about fruits of a faith, Catholics throughout history, as individuals and as groups, have done (dare I say) more than any other faith denomination: schools, hospitals, missions.  Although, once again, maybe they are just more identifiable.  Point is, it goes both ways.  
I've said this before, if you were to put up the good and charitable work of the last 2000 years up against the crimes of the last 2000 years, I'm certain the good would outweight 100 fold.
Even among Jesus hand chosen 12 disciples there was a 1/12 failure rate; which is a pretty high percent.
It's not about there errors that Judas or other Catholics committed though, it's about the doctrines, which I believe are 100% true.


----------



## libby

ItalianScallion said:


> My "strip mall" on Sunday is Red Robin, California, @ 11:30am. I'll be the one sitting at the bar telling everyone to repent. Well; I'll be sitting at the bar having lunch anyway...See you tomorrow? Are you a guy or gal? Ask for me by name (screen name)...I'm serious!
> 
> "Open a mega church"? Mercedes? Rolex's? I drive a 7 year old car and do not wear any jewelry. Wouldn't want anyone to think I'm doing well in this economy; they might tax me more...
> 
> But seriously Bird Dog, you've obviously been hurt by some bad church folks (or you've been watching too many TV evangelists). All the more reason to search for the truth in all it's glory and don't let pride & tradition (2,000 years worth apparently) get in your way.



HA!  I might just come by and try to find you!  You're the forumite I love to hate...Or hate to love...
Anyway, if I didn't know better I'd swear you were my beloved uncle!


----------



## toppick08

libby said:


> I think all denominations have persecuted and been persecuted.  And while some here might not claim a denomination, plenty of people who are sola scriptura have fallen and committed horrendous crimes, as well, although I suppose they are not as easily identifiable because their religion is their own.
> Also, if we want to talk about fruits of a faith, Catholics throughout history, as individuals and as groups, *have done (dare I say) more than any other faith denomination: schools, hospitals, missions. * Although, once again, maybe they are just more identifiable.  Point is, it goes both ways.
> I've said this before, if you were to put up the good and charitable work of the last 2000 years up against the crimes of the last 2000 years, I'm certain the good would outweight 100 fold.
> Even among Jesus hand chosen 12 disciples there was a 1/12 failure rate; which is a pretty high percent.
> It's not about there errors that Judas or other Catholics committed though, it's about the doctrines, which I believe are 100% true.


----------



## Bird Dog

ItalianScallion said:


> My "strip mall" on Sunday is Red Robin, California, @ 11:30am. I'll be the one sitting at the bar telling everyone to repent. Well; I'll be sitting at the bar having lunch anyway...See you tomorrow? Are you a guy or gal? Ask for me by name (screen name)...I'm serious!
> 
> "Open a mega church"? Mercedes? Rolex's? I drive a 7 year old car and do not wear any jewelry. Wouldn't want anyone to think I'm doing well in this economy; they might tax me more...
> 
> But seriously Bird Dog, you've obviously been hurt by some bad church folks (or you've been watching too many TV evangelists). All the more reason to search for the truth in all it's glory and don't let pride & tradition (2,000 years worth apparently) get in your way.



Sorry, I am off to Guatemala today, hopefully to do some good "Deeds" and some fishing. I know you all don't believe in deeds but I do and besides that it make me feel good.

No Internet there so I will chat in about a week. It will be interesting to see where this thread goes by then.


----------



## toppick08

Bird Dog said:


> Sorry, I am off to Guatemala today, hopefully to do some good "Deeds" and some fishing. I know you all don't believe in deeds but I do and besides that it make me feel good.
> 
> No Internet there so I will chat in about a week. It will be interesting to see where this thread goes by then.



The Baptist beat you down there..

HAVE A SAFE TRIP AND RETURN SAFELY..!!..man


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> I'm not so sure you should be proud of some of that history and the people involved. Unless you agree with strangling and burning men at the stake for translating the bible into English so everybody can read it (William Tyndale). Or do you think baptists should be beheaded or tortured or drowned for our belief in Believer's Baptism? How about the Amish or Mennonites? Do you want to go persecute them?
> 
> Your Roman Catholic brethren throughout history have, God forgive them.



The entire Body of Christ is made of wheat and chaffe Zguy. History buff that you are, I have no doubt that you are aware of persecutions committed by Protestants (even toward each other). I guess I should mention *WESTBORO BAPTIST*, which is in today's culture and time not a culture 300+ years removed.

Since you are a Calvinist here's a quote for you from John Calvin himself, _"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt."_

So Zguy, are you proud of that? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you aren't. Please be realistic and do the same in kind.


----------



## libby

toppick08 said:


>



I did say, toppick...



> Although, once again, maybe they are just more identifiable.


----------



## toppick08

libby said:


> I did say, toppick...


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> ...Even among Jesus hand chosen 12 disciples there was a *1/12 failure rate;* which is a pretty high percent.
> It's not about there errors that Judas or other Catholics committed though, it's about the doctrines, which I believe are 100% true.



libby, my dear, you are clearly not aware that Judas did not "fail" in upholding his mission; it was Jesus who specifically chose Judas to carry out the plan of betraying Christ.  Here is where we find this in scripture:



> Jesus answered them, *Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?* He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. (John 6:70-71)



The point is that Jesus initially selected eleven (11) Apostles who He handpicked for the purpose of establishing the Foundation of Faith in God's Plan of Salvation but He also chose Judas (a devil) for the role of betrayal which would bring about the arrest and culminate in the trial, scourging and crucifixion of Christ at the behest  of the religious leaders who called Him a blasphemer.  Again, here is where Jesus gave Judas (a devil) the go-ahead to proceed in the mission he was chosen to do:  Jesus foreknew that Judas would betray Him:



> John, Chapter 13, verses:
> 
> 2: And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;
> ...
> 21: When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
> 22: Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
> 23: Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
> 24: Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
> 25: He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
> 26: Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
> 27: *And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.*28: Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.
> 29: For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.
> 30: He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.
> 31: Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.



So did Judas really fail? No. Judas (being a devil) fulfilled his role that led to the Crucifixion of Christ whereby Christ's Blood was shed for the remission of the sins of mankind.  It had to be - this was part of bringing about *God's Plan of Salvation.*

Later, Matthias is chosen to become the 12th Apostle, replacing Judas as mentioned in Acts 1:23-26)


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> libby, my dear, you are clearly not aware that Judas did not "fail" in upholding his mission; it was Jesus who specifically chose Judas to carry out the plan of betraying Christ.  Here is where we find this in scripture:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Jesus initially selected eleven (11) Apostles who He handpicked for the purpose of establishing the Foundation of Faith in God's Plan of Salvation but He also chose Judas (a devil) for the role of betrayal which would bring about the arrest and culminate in the trial, scourging and crucifixion of Christ at the behest  of the religious leaders who called Him a blasphemer.  Again, here is where Jesus gave Judas (a devil) the go-ahead to proceed in the mission he was chosen to do:  Jesus foreknew that Judas would betray Him:
> 
> 
> 
> So did Judas really fail? No. Judas (being a devil) fulfilled his role that led to the Crucifixion of Christ whereby Christ's Blood was shed for the remission of the sins of mankind.  It had to be - this was part of bringing about *God's Plan of Salvation.*
> 
> Later, Matthias is chosen to become the 12th Apostle, replacing Judas as mentioned in Acts 1:23-26)



So it is your position that Judas had no free will?  God predestined him for damnation??


----------



## Bavarian

Zguy28 said:


> I prefer to take the word of the Word Jesus Christ when He says "I know my sheep. And nobody will snatch them out of my hand."
> 
> Blessed Assurance!



So, where are the souls of the departed now?  You seem to think no one other that God and the angels are in Heaven, so where are the souls of the people not bad enough for Hell?

answer: Purgatory


----------



## Zguy28

Bavarian said:


> So, where are the souls of the departed now?


If saved, in paradise with Christ and Lazarus. If lost, in Hades with the rich man.




> You seem to think no one other that God and the angels are in Heaven, so where are the souls of the people not bad enough for Hell?
> 
> answer: Purgatory




I would humbly suggest a good and thorough study of 2 Corinthians. Purgatory is for those to whom Christ's righteousness wasn't enough to cover their sins.

Who is not able to be saved by Christ's righteousness?

Answer: nobody. 

Purgatory is an empty place in your imagination.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> So it is your position that Judas had no free will?  God predestined him for damnation??



libby, my dear, in the scripture Jesus had mentioned that one of those chosen (Judas) was a *devil*. This would be an individual who was already given over to Satan and spiritually possessed by the demonic spirit of antichrist. The Bible clearly speaks of people, then and now, being possessed with unclean spirits.

These would be the demons that are upon this earth to this day. They are the ones who had already exercised their "free-will" in Heaven at the beginning when they joined Satan in the attempted mutiny against God. Satan got kicked out of Heaven and cast down to earth (remember) and Satan will be at work with his minions deceiving people in Satan's attempt to keep people in darkness and deception in order to keep souls from being saved by Jesus.  This will go on until Christ finally puts an end to Satan's influence in this world.

So, to answer your question: Judas was a devil (according to Scripture-John 6:70) influenced by Satan (according to Scripture -John 13:2; Luke 22:3) and then commanded to proceed with the betrayal of Jesus (according to Scripture- John 13:27)

Judas would have already been one who used up his "free-will" if he was a devil, as Jesus mentioned. Judas' role that led up to the crucifixion was to do Satan's bidding in the betrayal of Christ and therefore he would have already been one from Satan's camp - which he was, according to Scripture.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> libby, my dear, in the scripture Jesus had mentioned that one of those chosen (Judas) was a *devil*. This would be an individual who was already given over to Satan and spiritually possessed by the demonic spirit of antichrist. The Bible clearly speaks of people, then and now, being possessed with unclean spirits.
> 
> These would be the demons that are upon this earth to this day. They are the ones who had already exercised their "free-will" in Heaven at the beginning when they joined Satan in the attempted mutiny against God. *Satan got kicked out of Heaven and cast down to earth (remember) and Satan will be at work with his minions deceiving people in Satan's attempt to keep people in darkness and deception in order to keep souls from being saved by Jesus. * This will go on until Christ finally puts an end to Satan's influence in this world.
> 
> So, to answer your question: Judas was a devil (according to Scripture-John 6:70) influenced by Satan (according to Scripture -John 13:2; Luke 22:3) and then commanded to proceed with the betrayal of Jesus (according to Scripture- John 13:27)
> 
> Judas would have already been one who used up his "free-will" if he was a devil, as Jesus mentioned. Judas' role that led up to the crucifixion was to do Satan's bidding in the betrayal of Christ and therefore he would have already been one from Satan's camp - which he was, according to Scripture.



Wow!!  It just dawned on me as I read this!  You believe that Satan and his minions work to keep people away from Christ, but you do not believe that God and His Faithful (the angels and Saints) have that same ability to influence the world with "temptations" to the good!
The awareness that Satan and his minions have of this world, you deny to the holy ones.

WOW!!  Thanks for helping to reaffirm the doctrine of the Communion of Saints!


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Wow!!  It just dawned on me as I read this!  You believe that Satan and his minions work to keep people away from Christ, but you do not believe that God and His Faithful (the angels and Saints) have that same ability to influence the world with "temptations" to the good!
> The awareness that Satan and his minions have of this world, you deny to the holy ones.
> 
> WOW!!  Thanks for helping to reaffirm the doctrine of the Communion of Saints!



The Holy Bible teaches that Satan and his minions are at work deceiving this world:



> But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
> In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)





> And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
> Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
> (2 Corinthians 11:14-15)






> Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
> Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
> Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)





> For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
> And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)



Sorry libby - you are reading into this what you want to in order to justify that Mary and the "saints" are assisting Jesus in Heaven.  Scripture supports the teaching that Satan is the "god" of this world and that he and his demonic minions are at work corrupting this world and keeping many souls from coming to the Saving Grace of God.

Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit of God has been sent into this world to reprove the world of sin and to point people to Jesus Christ.  Scripture teaches that Christ is the ONE to call upon for Salvation and that He will hear and He will respond.  

The RCC teaching of praying to Mary to intercede on your behalf or on the behalf of others is not scriptural nor was it ever a teaching of Jesus nor of Jesus' Disciples.  That is an "after-the-fact" misguided teaching that the RCC introduced.

The RCC is teaching fables - another gospel and another "Jesus" by claiming that there are others in Heaven that will hear your prayers and intercede with Him on your behalf to get your soul into Heaven. The RCC is not teaching the Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

*There Is Only One Truth.*


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> HA!  I might just come by and try to find you!  You're the forumite I love to hate...Or hate to love...
> Anyway, if I didn't know better I'd swear you were my beloved uncle!


Well, did you come by incognito? I was in my regular place this morning but no one came up and introduced themselves as Libby or Bird Dog. 

"Love to hate or hate to love"? 

Actually, I'm called "Uncle" by a lot of people. Even some who aren't blood related, so I'd be happy to be your Uncle if you'd want me to be...
Let me know next Sunday; same time, same place. We'll draw up my adoption papers...


Bavarian said:


> So, where are the souls of the departed now?  You seem to think no one other that God and the angels are in Heaven, so where are the souls of the people not bad enough for Hell?
> answer: Purgatory


Where does the Bible say anything about Purgatory? Even in Macabees 2 it is not mentioned. Why do you think that a doctrine MADE UP in the 14th century would hold any relevance to what was written and sealed in Scripture 1300 years earlier?? The Canon was closed inside of the first century. No bible book has any authorship after that time...


----------



## libby

ItalianScallion said:


> Well, did you come by incognito? I was in my regular place this morning but no one came up and introduced themselves as Libby or Bird Dog.
> 
> "Love to hate or hate to love"?
> 
> Actually, I'm called "Uncle" by a lot of people. Even some who aren't blood related, so I'd be happy to be your Uncle if you'd want me to be...
> Let me know next Sunday; same time, same place. We'll draw up my adoption papers...
> 
> Where does the Bible say anything about Purgatory? Even in Macabees 2 it is not mentioned. Why do you think that a doctrine MADE UP in the 14th century would hold any relevance to what was written and sealed in Scripture 1300 years earlier?? The Canon was closed inside of the first century. No bible book has any authorship after that time...



No, I didn't come by.  I went to Mass at 11 and after that I wanted to roll in on my way to run some errands, but forgot my wallet and had to go back home to get it.  Anyway, by that time I had pretty much run out the clock of being able to be out without baby boy.  Perhaps I'll try again next week!


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> The Holy Bible teaches that Satan and his minions are at work deceiving this world:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry libby - you are reading into this what you want to in order to justify that Mary and the "saints" are assisting Jesus in Heaven.  Scripture supports the teaching that Satan is the "god" of this world and that he and his demonic minions are at work corrupting this world and keeping many souls from coming to the Saving Grace of God.
> 
> Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit of God has been sent into this world to reprove the world of sin and to point people to Jesus Christ.  Scripture teaches that Christ is the ONE to call upon for Salvation and that He will hear and He will respond.
> 
> The RCC teaching of praying to Mary to intercede on your behalf or on the behalf of others is not scriptural nor was it ever a teaching of Jesus nor of Jesus' Disciples.  That is an "after-the-fact" misguided teaching that the RCC introduced.
> 
> The RCC is teaching fables - another gospel and another "Jesus" by claiming that there are others in Heaven that will hear your prayers and intercede with Him on your behalf to get your soul into Heaven. The RCC is not teaching the Jesus Christ of the New Testament.
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth.*



You've given attributes to Satan and his minions that you say belong only to God.
Is the idea that Satan is the god of this world supposed to make that okay?  My God is the God of this world and beyond.
The point is that you have contradicted yourself again.  You make rules for the rest of us and our theologies, but you except the rules for your own.
No explanation changes that fact.


----------



## baydoll

Bird Dog said:


> Please read post 382 and about a dozen others instead of trolling around, then spouting off your anti Catholic rants and false prophet theories



So I take that as a yes? 

How do you know what your church has been practicing for 2,000 years is the correct one?

And which 'false prophet' theories have I been spouting off?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> I think all denominations have persecuted and been persecuted.  And while some here might not claim a denomination, plenty of people who are sola scriptura have fallen and committed horrendous crimes, as well, although I suppose they are not as easily identifiable because their religion is their own.
> Also, if we want to talk about fruits of a faith, Catholics throughout history, as individuals and as groups, have done (dare I say) more than any other faith denomination: schools, hospitals, missions.  Although, once again, maybe they are just more identifiable.  Point is, it goes both ways.
> I've said this before, if you were to put up the good and charitable work of the last 2000 years up against the crimes of the last 2000 years, I'm certain the good would outweight 100 fold.



And you know this how?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> It's not about there errors that Judas or other Catholics committed though, it's about the doctrines, which I believe are 100% true.



How do you 'believe' this to be 100% true? How do you know you haven't been brainwashed into 'thinking' this?


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> The entire Body of Christ is made of wheat and chaffe Zguy. History buff that you are, I have no doubt that you are aware of persecutions committed by Protestants (even toward each other).



And then there are the apostate churches. With the Roman Catholic Church leading the pack.   



> I guess I should mention *WESTBORO BAPTIST*,



 Fred Phelps is nuttier than a fruitcake. Kinda like Benny Hinn on steroids.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> You've given attributes to Satan and his minions that you say belong only to God.
> Is the idea that Satan is the god of this world supposed to make that okay?  My God is the God of this world and beyond.
> The point is that you have contradicted yourself again.  You make rules for the rest of us and our theologies, but you except the rules for your own.
> No explanation changes that fact.



Wow Strawman much?  

Nowhere did Starman say Satan has the same attributes as God and nowhere did he say since Satan is the god of this world that's supposed to be okay. Please be a little more careful with your reading, thank you.

Nowhere did God say (or anybody else in the Bible for that matter) that saints in heaven hear your prayers. Nowhere did God say He has his 'saints' in heaven guarding over people. But God DID say that Satan is very much alive and well and ruling over planet earth.




> Eph 2:2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.





> John 12:31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out



This is not to say that "he rules the world completely for only God does this. But it does mean that God, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed Satan to operate in this world (within the boundaries God has set for him) and has allowed Satan to operate with an agenda. 

When the Bible says Satan has power over the world, it must be made clear that God has given him domain over unbelievers alone. Believers are no longer under the rule of Satan:  



> For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, Colossians 1:13



Unbelievers, on the other hand, are caught "in the snare of the devil" 



> 2 Timothy 2:26 (NIV)
> 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.


lie in the "power of the evil one" 



> We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. 1 John 5:19 (NIV)




and are in bondage to Satan: 



> Ephesians 2:2 (NIV)
> 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.


 "

(thanks to gotquestions.org for the above). 


 Nowhere does it say 'saints' in heaven including Mary can hear your prayers.   YOU are saying Mary and the saints have the same attibutes as God that belong to HIM only. That's incredibly blasphemous, libby.


----------



## Starman3000m

baydoll said:


> ... Nowhere does it say 'saints' in heaven including Mary can hear your prayers.   YOU are saying Mary and the saints have the same attibutes as God that belong to HIM only. That's incredibly blasphemous, libby.



Exactly right baydoll.  

The Holy Bible does not give even a hint that Mary was ever going to be "assumed bodily" and joining Jesus in Heaven to take up the role of "Queen over all things," "Advocate," "Helper," "Benefactress" and "Mediatrix."

BTW: As part of my research of the RCC teachings, I tune in to the EWTN Catholic TV Channel to get an accurate analysis of their teaching and how it compares to the Holy Bible. I recently listened to a program with "Father John Corapi" speaking to a group of priests. There was a statue of Mary behind him, a golden crown on her head, and on the other side was a statue of Jesus with outstretched arms.

The main subject of this program was for priests to encourage more participation in the "Eucharist" to solve the problems of the world and also solve the problem of scandals within the Roman Catholic. At the end of his message, Fr. Corapi told the audience how things could be changed and he boldly said "Turn to Mary! Direct your devotions to the blessed virgin Mary. Draw close to your mother and your mother will draw close to you."

YIKES!!! *Mary Worship?*  Sure sounds like it!  

Blasphemous? Sure is bordering on it if not there completely since Fr. Corapi took Holy Scripture that applies to God alone and changed it to apply to Mary:

*Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.* (James 4:8)

Conclusion: The RCC is preaching another gospel and another "Jesus" and NOT the Jesus of the New Testament.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Exactly right baydoll.
> 
> The Holy Bible does not give even a hint that Mary was ever going to be "assumed bodily" and joining Jesus in Heaven to take up the role of "Queen over all things," "Advocate," "Helper," "Benefactress" and "Mediatrix."
> 
> BTW: As part of my research of the RCC teachings, I tune in to the EWTN Catholic TV Channel to get an accurate analysis of their teaching and how it compares to the Holy Bible. I recently listened to a program with "Father John Corapi" speaking to a group of priests. There was a statue of Mary behind him, a golden crown on her head, and on the other side was a statue of Jesus with outstretched arms.
> 
> The main subject of this program was for priests to encourage more participation in the "Eucharist" to solve the problems of the world and also solve the problem of scandals within the Roman Catholic. At the end of his message, Fr. Corapi told the audience how things could be changed and he boldly said "Turn to Mary! Direct your devotions to the blessed virgin Mary. Draw close to your mother and your mother will draw close to you."
> 
> YIKES!!! *Mary Worship?*  Sure sounds like it!
> 
> Blasphemous? Sure is bordering on it if not there completely since Fr. Corapi took Holy Scripture that applies to God alone and changed it to apply to Mary:
> 
> *Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.* (James 4:8)
> 
> Conclusion: The RCC is preaching another gospel and another "Jesus" and NOT the Jesus of the New Testament.
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



Listening to a clip of Fr. Corapi is what you call "research"?  He's an intellectual and theological GIANT, and if you spent any real time listening to him and not just trying to find some ammunition to use against Catholics you might actually learn something!

It might also be time for me to "ignore" you, too.  You are bent on perpetuating lies about what the RCC teaches and why.  As I've said before, you don't have to agree with me, and I can respect theological positions other than my own.  I have to draw the line with the lies that you and your Christian friend Baydoll are determined to spread.

You need to take a breath, read what the Bible says about humility, charity, and kindness, and put some of that into practice.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Listening to a clip of Fr. Corapi is what you call "research"?  He's an intellectual and theological GIANT, and if you spent any real time listening to him and not just trying to find some ammunition to use against Catholics you might actually learn something!
> 
> It might also be time for me to "ignore" you, too.  You are bent on perpetuating lies about what the RCC teaches and why.  As I've said before, you don't have to agree with me, and I can respect theological positions other than my own.  I have to draw the line with the lies that you and your Christian friend Baydoll are determined to spread.
> 
> You need to take a breath, read what the Bible says about humility, charity, and kindness, and put some of that into practice.



*What the Holy Bible clearly states:*



> All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
> (2 Timothy 3:16)
> 
> Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2)
> 
> For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
> (2 Timothy 4:3)



You may place me on ignore if you wish libby.  That does not hide nor keep the Truth from being *The Truth!*

I love you dearly and stand by what I have said: The RCC is not teaching you the Truth of God when it comes to your eternal Salvation.  I would suggest that you, personally take the time to read the New Testament Gospels for yourself; do a personal study and seek God's Wisdom (Not Mary's) in this seriour matter.  Believe what you wish but I am telling you what the Holy Bible states in regard to those who would lead people astray and away from giving exclusive honor and glory to the only Wise God and Saviour, Jesus Christ whose account is written about in the Holy Bible.

All others that teach a different "Jesus" are teaching false doctrine.

I am sorry if this ends our friendship and you place me on ignore forever  but as I have cited the following scripture once before:

*Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.* (Proverbs 27:6)

I still love you as a friend no matter what.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Listening to a clip of Fr. Corapi is what you call "research"?  He's an intellectual and theological GIANT, and if you spent any real time listening to him and not just trying to find some ammunition to use against Catholics you might actually learn something!
> 
> It might also be time for me to "ignore" you, too.  You are bent on perpetuating lies about what the RCC teaches and why.  As I've said before, you don't have to agree with me, and I can respect theological positions other than my own.  I have to draw the line with the lies that you and your Christian friend Baydoll are determined to spread.
> 
> You need to take a breath, read what the Bible says about humility, charity, and kindness, and put some of that into practice.



Blind leading the blind...

Okay, so how is "Turn to Mary! Direct your devotions to the blessed virgin Mary. Draw close to your mother and your mother will draw close to you." not incredibly blaphemous, libby? 

Not one single person in the NT ever told anyone to turn to Mary. Not one single person in the NT ever told anyone to direct their devotions to Mary. Not one single person in the NT ever told anyone to draw close to Mary and she will draw close to you. Not one single prayer was ever addressed to Mary when she was living nor was any worship ever offered to her. Instead we are told to turn to JESUS ALONE. We are told to direct our devotions to JESUS. We are told to draw close to JESUS and HE will draw close to you. We are told to pray to GOD IN HEAVEN not a WORD said about Mary. We are told over and over and OVER AGAIN to worship GOD ALONE and again not a single word about worshipping Mary. 

Your esteemed Fr. Corapi is woefully blind as well as incredibly ignorant about God.

A question for you libby: Who is Psalm 73:25 referring to?


(and btw: I'm STILL waiting for you and the other Catholics on here to answer me what 'lies' we are 'perpetuating' about what your Church teaches. Not that I'm holding my breath or anything....


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> *What the Holy Bible clearly states:*
> 
> 
> 
> You may place me on ignore if you wish libby.  That does not hide nor keep the Truth from being *The Truth!*
> 
> I love you dearly and stand by what I have said: The RCC is not teaching you the Truth of God when it comes to your eternal Salvation.  I would suggest that you, personally take the time to read the New Testament Gospels for yourself; do a personal study and seek God's Wisdom (Not Mary's) in this seriour matter.  Believe what you wish but I am telling you what the Holy Bible states in regard to those who would lead people astray and away from giving exclusive honor and glory to the only Wise God and Saviour, Jesus Christ whose account is written about in the Holy Bible.
> 
> All others that teach a different "Jesus" are teaching false doctrine.
> 
> I am sorry if this ends our friendship and you place me on ignore forever  but as I have cited the following scripture once before:
> 
> *Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.* (Proverbs 27:6)
> 
> I still love you as a friend no matter what.



You can call the doctrines "false"; I have no problem with this being your opinion.  _Do you not see what I'm trying to say?_  Saying Fr. Corapi was encouraging "worship" of Mary is a _lie!  _That's like me accusing you of worshipping the Bible itself, as opposed to the Truth, which is that it is an instrument you use to draw closer to God.  Mary is nothing more than an instrument that says, "Do whatever He tells you."  Why is the inanimate object more revered than the woman who bore the Savior?  If you don't recognize the basis for what we believe, then of course you see it as blasphemous.  If someone does not understand (or want to understand) the basis for your belief in the Bible, then they would insist that you are being blasphemous.  Take the plank out of your eye, SM!

You are the one trying to make Mary a goddess.  You are the one spending an inordinate amount of time consumed with her. 
I do not "put people on ignore" using the forum tool, because I look forward to a time when you might put out something productive; I enjoy an honest and rigorous discussion of the issues.  Like w/ Baydoll, it seems it is no longer a good use of my time to try to explain the very sound Christocentric and thoroughly Biblical reasons for various Catholic doctrines.
My prayers are always with you.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> You can call the doctrines "false"; I have no problem with this being your opinion.  _Do you not see what I'm trying to say?_  Saying Fr. Corapi was encouraging "worship" of Mary is a _lie!  _That's like me accusing you of worshipping the Bible itself, as opposed to the Truth, which is that it is an instrument you use to draw closer to God.  Mary is nothing more than an instrument that says, "Do whatever He tells you."  Why is the inanimate object more revered than the woman who bore the Savior?  If you don't recognize the basis for what we believe, then of course you see it as blasphemous.  If someone does not understand (or want to understand) the basis for your belief in the Bible, then they would insist that you are being blasphemous.  Take the plank out of your eye, SM!
> 
> You are the one trying to make Mary a goddess.  You are the one spending an inordinate amount of time consumed with her.
> I do not "put people on ignore" using the forum tool, because I look forward to a time when you might put out something productive; I enjoy an honest and rigorous discussion of the issues.  Like w/ Baydoll, it seems it is no longer a good use of my time to try to explain the very sound Christocentric and thoroughly Biblical reasons for various Catholic doctrines.
> My prayers are always with you.



libby, it has been proven in Scripture that Jesus Christ was brutally tortured, hung on a cross and was crucified to shed His Blood for your sins, mine, and for all who place faith in Him alone. It is proven by Scripture that Jesus Resurrected from the tomb and is alive today as the King of King, Lord of Lords and Saviour of mankind - for those who trust in Him. The Holy Bible states that Jesus was seen by more than 500 people after He had resurrected and after 40 days He ascended to take His position of Glory in Heaven where He reigns today.

*Please show me in the Holy Bible* where there were ever any eye witness  accounts that Mary was "assumed bodily" and is alive right now in Heaven - assisting Jesus through her elevated position as "Queen over all things," "Advocate,"  "Helper," "Benefactress," "Mediatrix," helping souls get into Heaven, and is the one to whom you should be directing your prayers to and reciting repetitious "Hail Mary's" in order to get your message through.

*Please show me in the Holy Bible *where the Disciples, and Jesus for that matter, ever told Christ's followers to "Turn to Mary" and "Direct your devotions to Mary".

I could go on and on about the honor and glory that the RCC takes away from The New Testament accounts of Jesus Christ and hands them off to Mary as being the one to direct your prayers to.  The very Catechism of the RCC is clearly based on such appeal to have parishioners trust in the guidance of Mary, "mother of the church," "mother of the angels," "mother of the saints," etc. as I heard being proclaimed in a recital by the order of monks in their devotions to Mary.

Sorry, libby, but as I stated: The RCC is teaching another gospel and another "Jesus" and is not telling people the Truth about God's Plan of Salvation through Christ alone. There is NO Mediatrix alive in Heaven at this moment and there never was, according to the Holy Bible.

Invite the Living, Risen Lord, Jesus Christ into your heart and life to be the sole Saviour of you and your family and that the Light of Truth of His Gospel be shed light upon the dark deceptions that the RCC has indoctrinated you to believe. Trust in Christ alone. Mary and the "saints" have no bearing nor any say on your personal Salvation that only Christ can give.   

There is no spiritual half-way house "purgatory" where you can clean things up in the after life.  Things are cleaned up in the here and now. Your sins are washed away in this life ONLY through the Redemption and cleansing Blood of Christ when you accept Him alone as Lord and Saviour.

*There Is Only One Truth.*


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Like w/ Baydoll, it seems it is no longer a good use of my time to try to explain the very sound Christocentric and thoroughly Biblical reasons for various Catholic doctrines.



Why because I disagree with you? Because I question your Church and it's teachings? I've not never, not once attacked you personally, libby. The only thing I am trying to do is get you to see that you are in harm's way and in danger. We are only trying to RESCUE you libby before it's too late for you.  

If I didn't care I wouldn't be here trying to persuade you and I'm sure Starman (and ItalianStallion) feel the same way. 

And for the record libby, you haven't given us any Biblical reasons for your various Catholic doctrines. And your 'very sound Christocentric' Catholic doctrines are suspect at best.

Stop running away!


----------



## ItalianScallion

I think it is clear that the problem here is not having the same standard for spiritual truth or, at least, not believing it completely. Do you notice how those with the Bible as their only truth have no differences in their beliefs about salvation, praying and other "essential" Christian doctrines? We have minor differences with secondary (disputable) doctrines but that's about it.

There is a lack of discernment in a lot of folks here even though many of them claim a belief in "God". Having said that, it becomes imperative that we still speak the truth but I will no longer "beat it to death" since the recipients of this truth are not able to understand, discern or accept it. 

Unless they become objective and forget denominational doctrines, they'll be lost in them until "the Day". It's turned into a battle of verses and interpretations, without much mind changing going on...


----------



## Zguy28

Question for Roman Catholics: Is belief in any of the RCC's views/doctrines of Mary required for salvation?


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> Question for Roman Catholics: Is belief in any of the RCC's views/doctrines of Mary required for salvation?



All mitigating circumstances aside, for a Catholic, yes.  At this point, though, I want to remind you that the RCC does not teach that only Catholics go to Heaven.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> All mitigating circumstances aside, for a Catholic, yes.  At this point, though, I want to remind you that the RCC does not teach that only Catholics go to Heaven.



Do all Catholics go to Heaven or do they first go to "purgatory" then onto Heaven?


----------



## Zguy28

libby said:


> All mitigating circumstances aside, for a Catholic, yes.  At this point, though, I want to remind you that the RCC does not teach that only Catholics go to Heaven.


That doesn't make sense to me.

If I am a Roman Catholic, but I reject Marian doctrine, I'm damned.

If I am not a Roman Catholic, and I reject Marian doctrine, there is possibility that I am saved.

This question is tangental to my point, but what is the Roman Catholic criteria for "others" who might go to heaven?

*My main point is this though,* if you must believe in Marian doctrine to be saved, and Marian doctrine states that Mary cooperate in the redemption of mankind at the cross by consenting her son to die (Overview of Marian Doctrine), then aren't you saying you must receive Mary and Jesus to be saved?

In other words, are you saved in the name of Mary and of Jesus?


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> Question for Roman Catholics: Is belief in any of the RCC's views/doctrines of Mary required for salvation?



Simply put, one who dies in a state of sanctifying grace is saved.


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> Simply put, one who dies in a state of sanctifying grace is saved.


That doesn't really answer my question since we kind of have different views of justification and sanctification.

Anyway, does a "state of sanctifying grace" mean you are saved in the name of Mary and of Jesus?

Since she is the "mediator of all graces" and had to consent to her son's death to redeem us.


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> That doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> If I am a Roman Catholic, but I reject Marian doctrine, I'm damned.
> 
> If I am not a Roman Catholic, and I reject Marian doctrine, there is possibility that I am saved.
> 
> This question is tangental to my point, but what is the Roman Catholic criteria for "others" who might go to heaven?
> 
> *My main point is this though,* if you must believe in Marian doctrine to be saved, and Marian doctrine states that Mary cooperate in the redemption of mankind at the cross by consenting her son to die (Overview of Marian Doctrine), then aren't you saying you must receive Mary and Jesus to be saved?
> 
> In other words, are you saved in the name of Mary and of Jesus?



Not necessarily.  The church recognizes that every single soul is different, as are the circumstances that brought them to where they are.  She recognizes that only God knows every one of us so intimately that we can only be judged fairly by Him.  
If a person rejects Marian doctrine, for instance, because it has not been adequately explained/presented, then it would not be their fault for rejecting it.  This is one reason I get upset when SM insists on posted falsehoods about what Marian doctrine is and is not.
If someone is a Catholic, especially in today's world, who has suffered an abuse by Catholic clergy and therefore rejected the RCC outright, should that person be damned?  I seriously don't think so, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that all of a person's circumstances will mold them.
We are not "saved" by Mary at all.  Through her cooperation He came into the world


----------



## Zguy28

libby said:


> We are not "saved" by Mary at all.  Through her cooperation He came into the world


Did you see the link I put in my previous post?

Can you see where I might think so? Since she had to consent and will that Jesus should die to redeem us?

Or that since she is "the mediator of all graces" and Radiant1 said we must be in a "state of sanctifying grace"?

After we get this hashed out, I have another question.


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> That doesn't really answer my question since we kind of have different views of justification and sanctification.
> 
> Anyway, does a "state of sanctifying grace" mean you are saved in the name of Mary and of Jesus?
> 
> Since she is the "mediator of all graces" and had to consent to her son's death to redeem us.



She did not have to consent.  She submitted to the will of God in all things.  Even, as an unmarried woman, knowing the punishment for being found pregnant was to be stoned to death, she said, "yes".  She did not have divine foreknowledge, but she trusted that God would do all things according to His purpose.
Did she know the Scriptures?  Sure, but how in the world do you think you would react if an angel of God appeared to you and asked you to do something that would get you stoned to death?  Think you might ask a question or two?


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> Did you see the link I put in my previous post?
> 
> Can you see where I might think so? Since she had to consent and will that Jesus should die to redeem us?
> 
> Or that since she is "the mediator of all graces" and Radiant1 said we must be in a "state of sanctifying grace"?



It seems we're overlapping each other.  She did NOT "have to" consent.


----------



## Zguy28

libby said:


> She did not have to consent.


Then you disagree with Fr. Most?

Overview of Marian Doctrine



> One of the oldest teachings of the Church is that Mary is the New Eve. Just as the first Eve really contributed to the disaster of original sin, so Mary the New Eve really contributed to removing it, that is, to redeeming us. She was Mother of the Redeemer precisely insofar as He is our Redeemer. *Every Pope since Leo XIII, and Vatican II, in seventeen documents have said that her role in redeeming us extends even to a part in the great sacrifice of Calvary itself! *It is a general principle, that if something is taught repeatedly by the Church, even on a level less than a definition, the teaching is infallible.
> 
> *Vatican II, echoing earlier papal teaching, tells us that at the cross she was asked even to "consent" to the death of her Son (LG # 58).* Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical, The Mother of the Redeemer, set out to further deepen that teaching (as he tells us in his Guardian of the Redeemer [on St. Joseph]). He showed that this was the "deepest self-emptying in history" for her and her Son. In in it, Mary practiced "the obedience of faith". Now since all perfection lies in positively willing what God wills whenever we know His positive will, *it is clear that Mary was called on to positively will that her Son die, die then, die so horribly. She had to will this in spite of a love for her Son so great that "only God can comprehend it"*--for Pius IX had said, as we saw above that her holiness was that great even at the start. But holiness and love of God are interchangeable words. So in willing the death of her Divine Son, it is clear that her suffering was such that "no one but God could comprehend it."


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> That doesn't really answer my question since we kind of have different views of justification and sanctification.
> 
> Anyway, does a "state of sanctifying grace" mean you are saved in the name of Mary and of Jesus?
> 
> Since she is the "mediator of all graces" and had to consent to her son's death to redeem us.



We are saved in the name of Christ Jesus. Mary cannot mediate anything without the grace given to her by God. Mary is dependent upon Christ, just as we all are.


----------



## libby

*



			Mary practiced "the obedience of faith". Now since all perfection lies in positively willing what God wills whenever we know His positive will, it is clear that Mary was called on to positively will that her Son die, die then, die so horribly. She had to will this in spite of a love for her Son so great that "only God can comprehend it"-
		
Click to expand...

*
I think the article defines "consent" here, not that her consent was "required", but that it was given in perfect submission to God's Will.  "Be it done onto me according to thy word."


----------



## Zguy28

libby said:


> I think the article defines "consent" here, not that her consent was "required", but that it was given in perfect submission to God's Will.  "Be it done onto me according to thy word."


What if she had refused?


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> We are saved in the name of Christ Jesus. Mary cannot mediate anything without the grace given to her by God. Mary is dependent upon Christ, just as we all are.



But you still actually believe that Mary was "assumed bodily" up to Heaven where she is alive and actively looking upon the souls of this world alongside Jesus?  *Yes, or, No?*

And, if so, she (according to RCC Catechism) reigns in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," "Benefactress," and "Mediatrix" as her efforts in helping souls get into Heaven?  *Yes, or, No?*

Also, as I asked libby, Do all Catholics go to Heaven or do they first have to go to "purgatory" before going on to Heaven?  *Which one?*


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> What if she had refused?



Dunno.  I think that God had a plan for that, too; although Divine Foreknowledge means He knew He didn't have to.
If Muslims did take over in America and threatened your child if you didn't convert to Islam, would it be a correct statement to say that you "consented" to the death of your child if you refused to deny Christ?
You submitted to the death warrant because you want to submit to God's Will.  Correct?


----------



## libby

SM has argued that Judas was prepared as a devil from the foundation of the world, yet he rejects the idea that Mary would have been prepared for the great privilege that was hers.
Why doesn't this make sense to me? 
(And the answer is NOT RCC indoctrination)

Leaving for a few hours.  Will check back later.


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> We are saved in the name of Christ Jesus. Mary cannot mediate anything without the grace given to her by God. Mary is dependent upon Christ, just as we all are.


I guess my question is then, does she decide anything with regards to grace? Or is she just a vessel that pours it out to who God decides?


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> But you still actually believe that Mary was "assumed bodily" up to Heaven where she is alive and actively looking upon the souls of this world alongside Jesus?  *Yes, or, No?*
> 
> And, if so, she (according to RCC Catechism) reigns in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," "Benefactress," and "Mediatrix" as her efforts in helping souls get into Heaven?  *Yes, or, No?*
> 
> Also, as I asked libby, Do all Catholics go to Heaven or do they first have to go to "purgatory" before going on to Heaven?  *Which one?*



Gee Starman, why don't you put little yes, no, maybe checkmark boxes for us? 

1. I think anyone who is in heaven is actively looking upon the entire universe -- heaven, earth, and anywhere in between -- alongside Jesus. Of course, that is if one believes in Heaven as being a place, which you seem to.

2.  It is through Christ that anyone, Mary included, helps get a soul into heaven. That includes you Starman since you like to preach and evangelize so much. You know, participate with God and His work. 

3.  I would think some Catholics may be in a state of hell. I would like to think the majority go to heaven after a time in purgatory, and that a good few go straight to heaven. I can only speculate on the state of some souls.


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> I guess my question is then, does she decide anything with regards to grace? Or is she just a vessel that pours it out to who God decides?



The only thing she decides is if she is going to participate in the grace given her, no matter what that particular grace may be. She is a most perfect vessel. Just like all of us strive to be, right?


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> SM has argued that Judas was prepared as a devil from the foundation of the world, yet he rejects the idea that Mary would have been prepared for the great privilege that was hers.
> Why doesn't this make sense to me?
> (And the answer is NOT RCC indoctrination)
> 
> Leaving for a few hours.  Will check back later.



Not true dear libby  you didn't read my post thoroughly.  

I have stated that somewhere along the way, Judas, had decided to follow Satan. Free-will is a personal "response" on the part of one faced with a decision.

In the case of Judas, Jesus (being all-knowing) knew his heart:
If you go back and re-read my posts, you will see that I stated how Judas had to have used his free-will to become a follower of Satan to begin with.
In the context of Scripture, Jesus knew that Judas was given over to Satan's camp but that is who Jesus needed to select in order to have a traitor in the midst which resulted in the betrayal.

In the case of Mary - God (being all-knowing) knew her heart.
God looked upon Mary and found her to be above reproach among women. She was proclaimed "Blessed" and chosen to be the mother who would give birth to the Christ-Child and Saviour of mankind. God knew her heart as being one wishing to serve God and He would have foreknown that she was going to be acceptable to the calling when the angel let Mary know she had been chosen. 

That was Mary's only role; to give birth to Jesus. Sure, she would have remained faithful to God all the rest of her life BUT there is no Biblical evidence that she went on to be a "perpetual virgin". On the contrary, the Bible states that Joseph did not "know Mary" until after the Christ Child was born.  The Bible states that there were other brothers and sisters in Jesus' family which would have been born afterward to Joseph and Mary. In this case they would have been half-brothers / half-sisters to Jesus.

There is no Biblical indication proving the RCC claim that Mary was "assumed bodily" up to Heaven and that she would take up the titles of "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," Benefactress," and "Mediatrix," working alongside Jesus.  

The RCC is teaching another gospel, another Jesus and another "Mary" and not teaching the Biblical Truth that is found in the New Testament accounts.

*There Is Only One Truth.*


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> The only thing she decides is if she is going to participate in the grace given her, no matter what that particular grace may be. She is a most perfect vessel. Just like all of us strive to be, right?


Then it is purely an honorary role for her?

According to the RCC, is a direct audience available to the throne of God?


----------



## thatguy

Zguy28 said:


> Question for Roman Catholics: Is belief in any of the RCC's views/doctrines of Mary required for salvation?



Here is a question for all the non catholics: Where is Mary now? did she go to heaven?


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> Then it is purely an honorary role for her?
> 
> According to the RCC, is a direct audience available to the throne of God?



You're losing me, maybe I'm just getting tired. A direct audience for who? Mary? 

If so, yes. Think the marriage feast of Cana (Jn 2-11). Mary asked Jesus to make wine, He questioned her (fussed at her like a son would to a mom who was prompting him to do something), then He did it; His first miracle. Mary's special like that.

Even so, I would imagine we all have a direct audience before God when in heaven. It's a state of being. We will all be one in a way unimaginable to us now.

I'm not the best one to expound on Marian doctrines in such great details. Perhaps it's because I'm a convert and not raised in the culture, but although I intellectually assent to the Marian doctrines, I don't particular practice a devotion to her. Special devotions to Mary are not a requirement for Catholics, believe it or not.


----------



## Zguy28

thatguy said:


> Here is a question for all the non catholics: Where is Mary now? did she go to heaven?


Yes. Just like all other believers.



Radiant1 said:


> You're losing me, maybe I'm just getting tired. A direct audience for who? Mary?


I meant us, now.

I read Hebrews and it says "Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need."

This tells me that I can approach the throne of God with confidence. How is that possible since I am a sinful person? Obviously I am imputed with righteousness from Jesus Christ, who sits in God's presence. If this be the case, I need no additional mediator, nor do I need a refining purgatory.

But anyways, I am tired as well. Time for a break.


----------



## Bavarian

Let us look at a different important question.  Since Christ said that all must go through Him to get to The Father, ie. get into Heaven.  What do you think happens to the millions of people in the World who do not Christ through no fault of their own.  People living in regions of the World where the Gospel has not been preached?

I do think that the same requirement to accept Christ to reach the Father also applies to Marian dogma properly proclaimed by The Church, ex-Cathedra.  For example the Immaculate Conception, the Annunciation, (coming soon on the 25th of March) and the Assumption.  The doctrine of co-Mediatrix has not yet been formally proclaimed, not that it is not true, but not on level, yet, of the aforementioned doctrines.

So, your original question, I answer yes.


----------



## toppick08

Bavarian said:


> Let us look at a different important question.  Since Christ said that all must go through Him to get to The Father, ie. get into Heaven.  What do you think happens to the millions of people in the World who do not Christ through no fault of their own.  People living in regions of the World where the Gospel has not been preached?
> 
> I do think that the same requirement to accept Christ to reach the Father also applies to Marian dogma properly proclaimed by The Church, ex-Cathedra.  For example the Immaculate Conception, the Annunciation, (coming soon on the 25th of March) and the Assumption.  The doctrine of co-Mediatrix has not yet been formally proclaimed, not that it is not true, but not on level, yet, of the aforementioned doctrines.
> 
> So, your original question, I answer yes.



Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
James, 1. 27


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> ... Special devotions to Mary are not a requirement for Catholics, believe it or not.



Hmmm...that's questionable but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that special devotions to Mary are not a "requirement for Catholics" - even though Fr. Corapi boldy stated to an audience of priests, "Turn to Mary!" "Direct your devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary!" "Draw closer to your mother and your mother will draw closer to you"  (Source: TV Broadcast segment on EWTN)

However, here is what you must believe according to RCC teachings:

Papal Decrees


> Following is the ending of the bull Ineffabilis Deus in which Pope Pius IX declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854:
> “Therefore, if some should presume to think in their hearts otherwise than we have defined (which God forbid), they shall know and thoroughly understand that they are by their own judgment condemned, have made shipwreck concerning the faith, and fallen away from the unity of the Church; and, moreover, that they, by this very act, subject themselves to the penalties ordained by law, if, by word or writing, or any other external means, they dare to signify what they think in their hearts.”  [25]



And;



> On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII, exercising papal infallibility, declared in "Munificentissimus Deus" that it is a dogma of the Church "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." As a dogma, *the Assumption is a required belief of all Catholics*; anyone who publicly dissents from the dogma, Pope Pius declared, "has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."



Regarding really not being required to pay special devotions to Mary, well, at least you have many from which to select in case you want to honor Mary in any special way - as noted in the following list:



> Feasts, Prayers, Activities, Resources honoring the Blessed Virgin Mary
> 
> Alphabetical list of Prayers, Feasts, articles
> •	Angelus - Prayer cards available see Catalog Page
> •	Angelus (Spanish) - Prayer cards available see Catalog Page
> •	Annunciation (March 25)
> History -- Family Observances -- Activities with Children -- Mary's Flowers -- Icon - Incarnation, (Voices Lent/Easter 2003)
> •	Assumption (August 15)
> Feast of the Assumption -- Observance of the Assumption -- Prayers and devotions (Hymns: The Ark which God has sanctified and Immaculate Mary) -- Activities for Children
> •	Ave Maria - Hail Mary - Memorare
> •	Birth of Mary (September 8)
> The Feast of the Birth of Mary -- Family Observances
> •	Blessed Virgin Mary - Saturday devotions
> •	Blessed Mother Teresa's letter to Women for Faith and Family 1987 Conference -- Devotion to Our Lady.
> 
> •	Directory on Popular Piety -- Chapter 5: The Veneration of the Holy Mother of God
> •	Immaculate Conception (December 8)
> History -- Catechism -- Magnificat -- Prayers -- Readings -- Family Celebration
> •	Immaculate Heart of Mary (Saturday following the Second Sunday after Pentecost)
> •	Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary
> •	Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Pope Paul VI 1964 - Chapter 8 - The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God in the Mystery of Christ and the Church
> •	Magnificat - Prayer of the Virgin Mary
> •	Mary Coloring Page, with "Hail Mary" prayer
> •	Mary the Dawn: Hymn
> •	Mary Flowers - Flowers that traditionally symbolize Mary and her virtues and attributes.
> •	May Crowning
> History of Crowning -- Mary the Crown of Creation -- A May Crowning -- Other Family Activities for May
> •	The Most Holy Name of Mary (September 12)
> •	Our Lady of Good Remedy (October 8)
> •	Our Lady of Guadalupe (December 12)
> Prayers - Ave Maria (Spanish) - Family celebration
> •	Our Lady of Lourdes (February 11) *Plenary Indulgence for the 150TH Anniversary of Lourdes [added to this page 12/5/07]
> •	Our Lady of Mount Carmel (July 16)
> •	Our Lady of Prompt Succor (January 8)
> •	Our Lady of the Rosary (October 7)
> •	Our Lady of Sorrows (September 15)
> •	Our Lady of Walsingham (September 24, England)
> •	Our Mother of Perpetual Help (June 27)
> •	Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (November 21)
> •	Presentation of Our Lord (February 2)
> •	Prayer for Mothers
> •	Queenship of Mary (August 22)
> •	Redemptoris Mater (Mother of the Redeemer) Pope John Paul II
> (1987 Encyclical)
> •	Regina Caeli and Salve Regina
> Regina Caeli Prayer Cards available
> •	Rosarium Virginis Mariae Pope John Paul II
> October 2002 ¬ October 2003: The Year of the Rosary
> •	The Rosary
> Prayers -- Mysteries -- History -- Catechism -- Pope John Paul II
> •	The Rosary - and why we need to pray it... — by Joanna Bogle - Michaelmas 2009
> •	Saturday Devotions -- BVM
> •	Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God (January 1)
> Catechism of the Catholic Church -- Hymns (Ave Maria; Immaculate Mary; Salve Regina; Hail, Holy Queen) -- Readings for the Day -- More Marian Prayers
> •	Visitation (May 31)
> Chronological list of Feast Days of Mary
> January 1 - Solemnity of Mary
> January 8 - Our Lady of Prompt Succor
> February 2 - Presentation of the Lord
> February 11- Our Lady of Lourdes
> March 25 - Annunciation
> May 31 - Visitation
> June 27 - Our Mother of Perpetual Help
> July 16 - Our Lady of Mount Carmel
> August 15 - Assumption
> August 22 - Queenship of Mary
> September 8 - Birth of Mary
> September 12 - The Most Holy Name of Mary
> September 15 - Our Lady of Sorrows
> September 24 - Our Lady of Walsingham, England
> October 7 - Our Lady of the Rosary
> October 8 - Our Lady of Good Remedy
> November 21 - Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
> December 8 - Immaculate Conception
> December 12 - Our Lady of Guadalupe
> 
> -The Month of Mary is May.
> -The Month of the Rosary is October.
> -Mother's Day is the Second Sunday of May.
> -The Feast of the Immaculate Heart is the Saturday following the Second Sunday after Pentecost.
> -The Saturdays are also dedicated to Marian Devotions.
> ________________________________________
> Links to related articles on the ADOREMUS website
> The Angel of the Lord Declared unto Mary
> The Rosary and Eucharistic Adoration
> The Rosary of Our Lady
> The Rosary of Our Lady
> ________________________________________
> 
> (from the RCC Cathecism)
> *II. DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN*
> 
> *971* "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."513 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."514 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.515



The RCC is teaching another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical Accounts of The New Testament.


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> I meant us, now.
> 
> I read Hebrews and it says "Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need."
> 
> This tells me that I can approach the throne of God with confidence. How is that possible since I am a sinful person? Obviously I am imputed with righteousness from Jesus Christ, who sits in God's presence. *If this be the case, I need no additional mediator, nor do I need a refining purgatory*.
> 
> Being declared clean and actually being clean are two different things. Remember, we don't believe our sin is merely covered --crap covered with snow is still crap--, but rather that we, by the grace of God, actually do become holy.
> 
> But anyways, I am tired as well. Time for a break.



Wow, ok. I can see where this is going to go. Remember, the Apostolic faith does not believe that our sin is merely covered -- crap covered with snow is still crap -- but rather that we are in a process of BECOMING holy and partakers of the divine nature (2Peter 1, Romans 8, John 14-17). It's time to make a new thread; however, I may not have time for this over the weekend.

For now the short answer is, sure you can approach God; however, you cannot be one with Him until pure. If you meditate on the true nature of God, then it's easy enough to understand that He can't or won't be sullied up.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Hmmm...that's questionable but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that special devotions to Mary are not a "requirement for Catholics" - even though Fr. Corapi boldy stated to an audience of priests, "Turn to Mary!" "Direct your devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary!" "Draw closer to your mother and your mother will draw closer to you"  (Source: TV Broadcast segment on EWTN)



No doubt Starman you know more about my own chosen faith than I do. I mean, I only went through my own studies, a year-long conversion process with classes, took courses in theology, and taught salvation history for six years. I have no issue with the above quote, btw. It would do me well to draw inspiration from and emulate the Mother of God.



Starman3000m said:


> However, here is what you must believe according to RCC teachings:
> 
> Papal Decrees



Yeah, and? I said I intellectually assented.



Starman3000m said:


> And;
> 
> Regarding really not being required to pay special devotions to Mary, well, at least you have many from which to select in case you want to honor Mary in any special way - as noted in the following list:







Starman3000m said:


> The RCC is teaching another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical Accounts of The New Testament.



Please allow me to complete your statement so as to be more accurate. "The RCC is teaching another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical Accounts of The New Testament according to my personal interpretation of scripture because I, Starman, am my own pope but yet with no authority from God whatsoever."

Keep squawking in the wind.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> ...Please allow me to complete your statement so as to be more accurate. "The RCC is teaching another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical Accounts of The New Testament according to my personal interpretation of scripture because I, Starman, am my own pope but yet with no authority from God whatsoever."
> 
> Keep squawking in the wind.



OK - and by the way, onel026 mentioned that Mary was not considered by the RCC as being "co-Redeemer" yet that is apparently what she is called in the second segment below:



> *Encyclical Of Pope Leo XIII on the Rosary, 5 September 1895.
> Abridged from sections 8-16*.
> The power thus put into her hands is all but unlimited. How unerringly right, then, are Christian souls when they turn to Mary for help as though impelled by an instinct of nature, confidently sharing with her their future hopes and past achievements, their sorrows and joys, commending themselves like children to the care of a bountiful mother. How rightly, too, has every nation and every liturgy without exception acclaimed her great renown, which has grown greater with the voice of each succeeding century. Among her many other titles we find her hailed as "our Lady, our Mediatrix,"[3] "the Reparatrix of the whole world,"[4] "the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts."[5]
> 
> *Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Rosary, 8 September 1894.
> Sections 2-5 *
> (excerpt) …The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. Now, this merciful office of hers, perhaps, appears in no other form of prayer so manifestly as it does in the Rosary. For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our *co-Redemptress* comes to us, as it were, set forth, and in such wise as though the facts were even then taking place; and this with much profit to our piety, whether in the contemplation of the succeeding sacred mysteries, or in the prayers which we speak and repeat with the lips.
> 
> *Encyclical of Pope Pius X on the Immaculate Conception, 2 February 1904.*Mary, Mother of God and Men: sections 10-14
> (excerpt) … We are then, it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace--a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno, and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces. Jesus "sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high" (Hebrews i. 3.). Mary sitteth at the right hand of her Son--a refuge so secure and a help so trusty against all dangers that we have nothing to fear or to despair of under her guidance, her patronage, her protection. (Pius IX, in Bull Ineffabilis).
> 
> 
> *11) Benedict XV, Litterae Apostolicae, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918, AAS 10, 1918, 182*.
> (excerpt) ... further, there is a most constant belief among the faithful, proved by long experience, that as many as employ the same Virgin as Patron, will not at all perish forever.
> 
> *12) Benedict XV, Encyclical, Fausto appetente die, June 29, 1921, AAS 13, 1921, 334.*
> For he [St. Dominic] knew well that Mary ... has such influence with her divine Son, that He confers whatever of graces He confers on humans, does so always with her as minister and decision-maker [administra et arbitra].
> 
> *13) Pius XI, Apostolic Letter, Galliam, Ecclesiae filiam, March 2, 1922, AAS 14, 1922 186.*
> She, the Virgin Mother, [is] the treasurer [sequestra] of all graces with God.
> 
> *15) Pius XI, Apostolic Letter, Cognitum sane, Jan 14, 1926, AAS 18,1926, 213.*
> We, to whom nothing is dearer than that the devotion of the Christian people be aroused more and more towards the Virgin who is the treasurer [sequestra] of all graces with God, think we should grant these wishes.
> 
> 16) *Pius XI, Encyclical, Ingravescentibus malis, Sept 29, 1937, AAS 29, 1927, 380.*... we know also that all things are imparted to us from God the Greatest and Best, through the hands of the Mother of God.
> 
> 19) *John XXIII, Epistle to Cardinal Agaganian, Legate to Marian Congress in Saigon, Jan 31, 1959, AAS 51, 1959, 88.*For the faithful can do nothing more fruitful and salutary than to win for themselves the most powerful patronage of the Immaculate Virgin, so that by this most sweet Mother, there may be opened to them, all the treasures of the divine Redemption, and so they may have life, and have it more abundantly. Did not the Lord will that we have everything through Mary?"
> 
> 
> *Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII defining the dogma of the Assumption,* 1 November 1950:
> (excerpt)… by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
> Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
> I, PIUS, Bishop of the Catholic Church, have signed, so defining
> 
> Source:
> The Church on Mary's Mediation



Believe as you wish, Radiant1, that's your choice!  However, I hereby stand by my claim and you cannot say that you were never told:

The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.



> For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
> (2 Corinthians 11:4)
> 
> But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
> As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)



*There Is Only One Truth.*


----------



## ItalianScallion

Bavarian said:


> Since Christ said that all must go through Him to get to The Father, ie. get into Heaven.  What do you think happens to the millions of people in the World who do not Christ through no fault of their own.  People living in regions of the World where the Gospel has not been preached?


"...millions of people who do not know Christ"?? Why is your God so weak and incompetent? Do you think God would forget to make everyone know of Him and become accountable before He judges them? (Babies, unaccountable young people & handicapped people excepted). There is NO ONE who will stand in front of God, unaccountable. Since you don't read or know the Bible very much, I'll help you:

Romans 1:18 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 
19 *since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.* 
20 For since the creation of the world *God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.*"

Clear enough? And please stop demeaning God would ya? 


			
				Bavarian said:
			
		

> I do think that the same requirement to accept Christ to reach the Father also applies to Marian dogma properly proclaimed by The Church, ex-Cathedra.  For example the Immaculate Conception, the Annunciation, (coming soon on the 25th of March) and the Assumption.  The doctrine of co-Mediatrix has not yet been formally proclaimed, not that it is not true, but not on level, yet, of the aforementioned doctrines.


Where's that in Scripture please?? If it isn't there, it isn't doctrine, tyvm. I see who is guilty of an "assumption" here...


libby said:


> If a person rejects Marian doctrine, for instance, because it has not been adequately explained/presented, then it would not be their fault for rejecting it.


Where in Scripture please? I've never seen anything in the Bible that says Jesus + Marian doctrine=salvation, or "only if they knew Mary well enough". Now you make God out to be incompetent...What gives here people??


			
				Libby said:
			
		

> If someone is a Catholic, especially in today's world, who has suffered an abuse by Catholic clergy and therefore rejected the RCC outright, should that person be damned?  I seriously don't think so, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that all of a person's circumstances will mold them.
> We are not "saved" by Mary at all.  Through her cooperation He came into the world


Why is abuse now part of salvation? We need to meet dear lady. (Are we on for Sunday)?


----------



## thatguy

Zguy28 said:


> Yes. Just like all other believers.


Is there any reason that you would beleive that jesus woudn't favor his mother in heaven, and that she might not hold a special place there?


----------



## Starman3000m

thatguy said:


> Is there any reason that you would beleive that jesus woudn't favor his mother in heaven, and that she might not hold a special place there?



According to all indications in the Holy Bible, Mary was the most virtuous of women whose heart was set upon obeying and serving God. God knew her heart as He knows every person's heart and whether or not one is truly and sincerely seeking Him and willing to be led by Him. Because of her virtue, Mary was chosen by God for a specific reason and to fulfill a specific purpose; to give birth to the Christ-Child, Jesus Christ, who would be the Saviour of the Children of Israel and all mankind.  The Bible also speaks of others whose heart was set on serving God and He chose them to fulfill specific purposes that would culminate in bringing about the Message of God's Plan of Salvation through the Atoning Blood of Christ.

Although Mary was highly favored by God and blessed with being chosen to be the mother of Jesus, her role, according to the Holy Bible ends there. She fulfilled the purpose for which she was chosen, much like Noah, Moses, Abraham, the Old Testament Prophets and the New Testament Apostles fulfilled their roles as ordained by God.

There is no doubt that Jesus would have loved and honored His mother but after He was born His mission in this life was taken upon only Himself to fulfill.
He came to preach repentance, forgiveness, and the Grace of God that would be bestowed upon all who believed in Him.  He came to shed His Blood as the only acceptable Atonement for the sins of mankind that would be acceptable to God.  Jesus preached redemption through Him alone as it was He who said He came for that purpose:



> If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.
> Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: *but for this cause came I unto this hour.*Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. (John 12:26-28)



The Holy Bible states that Jesus resurrected to life and ascended up to Heaven where He is now at the right hand of God and will be the judge of all mankind.

The Holy Bible does not ever state that Mary would also be resurrected and "assumed bodily" up to Heaven to become a co-Mediator (Mediatrx) nor a co-Redeemer (co-Redemptrix) and play the role of Christ's assistant in Heaven.  That is Marian theology added after the fact by the Roman Catholic Church and even they admit they have no scriptural evidence to prove it.  The only way the RCC has been able to proclaim Marian theology is through its own conjecture and by taking Holy Scripture out of context and twisting it to fit the meaning they want it to.

Mary's soul would no doubt be in Heaven along with the souls of all other people who trusted in Jesus for Salvation.  There is no proof at all that she assists Jesus in the mediation and redemption process of souls for that is the work of Jesus alone.  To include Mary as being part of that process is to dilute the effectiveness of the Atoning Blood of Christ and say that Christ's Blood is not sufficient enough to cover the sins of mankind once and for all in the here and now.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> OK - and by the way, onel026 mentioned that Mary was not considered by the RCC as being "co-Redeemer" yet that is apparently what she is called in the second segment below:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish, Radiant1, that's your choice!  However, I hereby stand by my claim and you cannot say that you were never told:
> 
> The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.
> 
> 
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth.*



Yes, it is my choice. Now that you've enlightened me to the truth as you see it, and I still don't believe as you do, will I burn in hell?


----------



## libby

ItalianScallion said:


> "...millions of people who do not know Christ"?? Why is your God so weak and incompetent? Do you think God would forget to make everyone know of Him and become accountable before He judges them? (Babies, unaccountable young people & handicapped people excepted). There is NO ONE who will stand in front of God, unaccountable. Since you don't read or know the Bible very much, I'll help you:
> 
> Romans 1:18 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
> 19 *since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.*
> 20 For since the creation of the world *God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.*"
> 
> Clear enough? And please stop demeaning God would ya?
> 
> Where's that in Scripture please?? If it isn't there, it isn't doctrine, tyvm. I see who is guilty of an "assumption" here...
> 
> Where in Scripture please? I've never seen anything in the Bible that says Jesus + Marian doctrine=salvation, or "only if they knew Mary well enough". Now you make God out to be incompetent...What gives here people??
> 
> Why is abuse now part of salvation? We need to meet dear lady. (Are we on for Sunday)?



How long are you there for?


----------



## toppick08

Radiant1 said:


> Yes, it is my choice. Now that you've enlightened me to the truth as you see it, and I still don't believe as you do, *will I burn in hell?*


If your not Catholic or Baptist you will......


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> How long are you there for?


I normally try to get there around 11:30 and usually stay until @ 1:30pm...
I have a reserved seat at the left end of the bar. Really, I do.


----------



## Bavarian

ItalianScallion said:


> "...millions of people who do not know Christ"?? Why is your God so weak and incompetent? Do you think God would forget to make everyone know of Him and become accountable before He judges them? (Babies, unaccountable young people & handicapped people excepted). There is NO ONE who will stand in front of God, unaccountable. Since you don't read or know the Bible very much, I'll help you:
> 
> Romans 1:18 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
> 19 *since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.*
> 20 For since the creation of the world *God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.*"
> 
> Clear enough? And please stop demeaning God would ya?



You have apparently not traveled to other parts of the World where the people worship Shinto gods, Buddha, etc.  Even though I know St. Thomas made it to India, maybe further, but I visited his tomb in India, what about those people?  Can they get to Heaven by worshipping their idea of a god?
I won't tell you my thoughts, at least now.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Yes, it is my choice. Now that you've enlightened me to the truth as you see it, and I still don't believe as you do, will I burn in hell?


I really wish you folks would stop this: "believe as we do" thinking, as if it were from our own minds. None of us make this stuff up as we go. You folks are arguing against God Himself and His words, not ours. Believing anything else is warned against many times in the Bible. Why would Jesus go through all He went through if there were other ways to Heaven through Mary, Joseph or any of the "saints"? 

Didn't He chastize the Jews (his chosen people) enough to convince you folks that their beliefs were off base and that He and ONLY Him is the way to Heaven? These folks claimed to be children of Abraham but Jesus said they weren't (which set them off real good). We're not saying that any of you are not saved. We're just trying to help you see the many delusions that are out there; many disguised as main line denominations...

IF you're wrong, your mistake will be eternal so is it worth taking this chance and letting pride get in the way? Here it comes: we have nothing other than the Bible for absolute spiritual truth. Other sources can help, but only if they all reconcile with the Book. Even if you ONLY read this one verse, you should take it as if it were the most important verse in the Bible:

Galatians 1:6 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—*which is really no gospel at all*.

Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 

*But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! *

As we have already said, so now I say again: *If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!* 
Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ".


----------



## ItalianScallion

Bavarian said:


> You have apparently not traveled to other parts of the World where the people worship Shinto gods, Buddha, etc.  Even though I know St. Thomas made it to India, maybe further, but I visited his tomb in India, what about those people?  Can they get to Heaven by worshipping their idea of a god?


Apparently your god hasn't traveled there either...

And no, they cannot get to Heaven if they "worship their idea of a god". There is ONLY one God! Where do you get off thinking that any god will do? I know that you and the RCC teach the doctrine of the Triune God (unless it has changed since I was a kid). Why do you put Him in a box and limit His power? The Spirit of God can impress Himself on anyone, anywhere without people, media or books, would you agree with that?


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> I really wish you folks would stop this: "believe as we do" thinking, *as if it were from our own minds*. *None of us make this stuff up as we go*. You folks are arguing against God Himself and His words, not ours. Believing anything else is warned against many times in the Bible. Why would Jesus go through all He went through if there were other ways to Heaven through Mary, Joseph or any of the "saints"?
> 
> Didn't He chastize the Jews (his chosen people) enough to convince you folks that their beliefs were off base and that He and ONLY Him is the way to Heaven? These folks claimed to be children of Abraham but Jesus said they weren't (which set them off real good). We're not saying that any of you are not saved. We're just trying to help you see the many delusions that are out there; many disguised as main line denominations...
> 
> IF you're wrong, your mistake will be eternal so is it worth taking this chance and letting pride get in the way? Here it comes: *we have nothing other than the Bible for absolute spiritual truth*. Other sources can help, but only if they all reconcile with the Book. Even if you ONLY read this one verse, you should take it as if it were the most important verse in the Bible:
> 
> Galatians 1:6 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—*which is really no gospel at all*.
> 
> Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
> 
> *But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! *
> 
> As we have already said, so now I say again: *If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!*
> Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ".



Well frankly, I really wish you would get it through your head that it comes down to interpretation, yours, his, hers, and the Church that Christ founded called Catholic, that does teach that gospel, afterall it is the "we" spoken of in the passages you quoted.* The bible alone is not enough, OBVIOUSLY*!

You can't even trace your history or brand of faith back to Christ. I think it's you who pervert the gospel. So, what now?

If you can't or won't say if a Catholic is saved or not, then leave us alone. You make of yourself nothing but a squawking parrot and yapping dog.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Apparently your god hasn't traveled there either...
> 
> And no, they cannot get to Heaven if they "worship their idea of a god". There is ONLY one God! Where do you get off thinking that any god will do? I know that you and the RCC teach the doctrine of the Triune God (unless it has changed since I was a kid). Why do you put Him in a box and limit His power? *The Spirit of God can impress Himself on anyone, anywhere without people, media or books, would you agree with that*?



Then I highly suggest you sit down, shut up, and let Him do His work. He certainly doesn't need your hindrance by creating division.


----------



## Bavarian

ItalianScallion said:


> Apparently your god hasn't traveled there either...
> 
> And no, they cannot get to Heaven if they "worship their idea of a god". There is ONLY one God! Where do you get off thinking that any god will do? I know that you and the RCC teach the doctrine of the Triune God (unless it has changed since I was a kid). Why do you put Him in a box and limit His power? The Spirit of God can impress Himself on anyone, anywhere without people, media or books, would you agree with that?



I think it was n Japan or Cambodia, where a tour guide said the people practice every religion, Catholic, Shinto, and Buddhism.  Shinto for christenings, Buddhist for funerals, never said what they used Catholic for.  Every temple I visited I prayed that the people would see the light and said a quick Hail Mary.  

Some Traditionalist Catholics believe in Baptism of Desire, the people receiving remission from Original Sin by desiring it.  I worry for the non-Catholics, but hope God, in His infinite Mercy will let them into Heaven anyway. (I would tell the story I have heard of God being upset with St. Peter letting in less desirable people and to guard the Gates of Heaven more, when St. Peter tells Him that His mother is letting them in the back door, but that would generate another 50 pages, so I did not say it.)

Remember, Ash Wednesday is this Wednesday!  Do you know why Lent goes so slow now?  There are only two fast days left.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Well frankly, I really wish you would get it through your head that it comes down to interpretation, yours, his, hers, and the Church that Christ founded called Catholic, that does teach that gospel, afterall it is the "we" spoken of in the passages you quoted.* The bible alone is not enough, OBVIOUSLY*!
> You can't even trace your history or brand of faith back to Christ. I think it's you who pervert the gospel. So, what now?
> If you can't or won't say if a Catholic is saved or not, then leave us alone. You make of yourself nothing but a squawking parrot and yapping dog.


If "it comes down to interpretation", then anyone can make it say anything they want (which is what actually has happened) but that was not the writer's intent...This is why we're soo concerned. 
I most assuredly CAN trace my "brand of faith" to Christ. The Bible is God's Word, that's why the Bible & Jesus are BOTH called the Word of God. (That was easy).
I know you won't read this, but I'll post if for anyone who wants to:

"Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. 
The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity..."

See more at: What is the origin of the Catholic Church?


Radiant1 said:


> Then I highly suggest you sit down, shut up, and let Him do His work. He certainly doesn't need your hindrance by creating division.


Careful, I like a woman that is "assertive". I might post more like this just to hear you get feisty... 
Come and join Libby & I at Red Robin this Sunday. You can be feisty all you want there...


Bavarian said:


> I think it was n Japan or Cambodia, where a tour guide said the people practice every religion, Catholic, Shinto, and Buddhism.  Shinto for christenings, Buddhist for funerals, never said what they used Catholic for.  Every temple I visited I prayed that the people would see the light and said a quick Hail Mary.


I guess Mary was busy that day because their beliefs still haven't changed, eh?


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Yes, it is my choice. Now that you've enlightened me to the truth as you see it, and I still don't believe as you do, will I burn in hell?



First of all: Do you believe in your heart -absolutely 100%, without any doubt at all in everything the RCC teaches regarding your salvation?

This is the point: *There Is Only One Truth* and God has only *One Plan of Salvation!*. 

Thus, the plan you choose to believe will determine your eternal fate:

1.) Place your faith solely in the Atoning Blood of the New Testament Jesus (John 14:6) and upon no one or nothing else for God's Promise of Mercy, Forgiveness and for the Eternal Salvation of your soul so that you may know without a doubt today that you are a Child of God by faith in the True Jesus Christ; (Romans 8:16)  

or,

2.) Place your faith in the RCC Plan of Salvation, whose Atonement and Authority of "Jesus" is insufficient enough" to cleanse you in the here and now and which requires you to believe that Mary is in the mix reigning in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," "Benefactress," "co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," and helps souls get into Heaven - after serving a term in purgatory.


Summary Conclusion: 

*New Testament: ONE MEDIATOR -* 

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matthew 11:28-30)

For there is one God, and One Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5)

*RCC Catechism:* CO-MEDIATOR  - Mary is the Co-Mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions. (Catechism 968-970, 2677)  

*Note: *The decision in item #2 also applies to anyone in any other religion whose doctrine varies from the New Testament teaching.  Just substitute that religion's "Jesus" to that of the New Testament Jesus.



> *Trusting in the wrong Jesus will lead to eternal consequences:*
> 
> Matthew, Chapter 7, verses:
> 
> 21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
> 22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
> 23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
> 24: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
> 25: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
> 26: And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
> 27: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.



*...and that Rock was Christ.* (1 Corinthians 10:4)


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> All mitigating circumstances aside, for a Catholic, yes.  At this point, though, I want to remind you that the RCC does not teach that only Catholics go to Heaven.





"How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, *the Council teaches that the church, a pilgrim now on earth, it is necessary for salvation*: (Catechism of the Catholic Church; #846, Page 224.) 

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity *that outside her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins."* (Papal Bull UNAM SANCTUM, Pope Boniface VIII, November 18, 1302)

Thought I'd share.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> Simply put, one who dies in a state of sanctifying grace is saved.



Does the Bible condemn to hell anyone who fails to attend church, go to the sacrament of penance (iow, confession), eat Jesus in the Eucharist, or who eats meat on Fridays, uses birth control or gets divorced and remarried? 

Isn't it interesting that the Roman Catholic Church has attached a price tag, in terms of either the performance of certain rituals and good works (often both), and even money (mass cards) to that which the God of the Bible gives for free?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> If a person rejects Marian doctrine, for instance, because it has not been adequately explained/presented, then it would not be their fault for rejecting it.  This is one reason I get upset when SM insists on posted falsehoods about what Marian doctrine is and is not.



and these falsehoods are.....?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Not necessarily.



"(Mary) by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and Mediatrix." [The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, English Translation Copyright 1994, United States Catholic Conference. 
Page 252, #969] 

~But what does the Bible say? 

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Timothy 2:4-6) 

"She (Mary) cooperated . . . in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls." [same as above Page 252, #968] 

~But what does the Bible say? 

" Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." (Romans 8:34) 


Mary is called our mediatrix first because she cooperated in a unique way with Christ in his redemptive labors on earth. She is also mediatrix because she continues to intercede for us who are still working out our salvation on earth or suffering in purgatory." [The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism, by John A. Hardon, S.J., copyright 1981. : Page 69, #253] 

~But what does the Bible say? 

 "Wherefore he (Christ) is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he (Christ )ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25) 



Mary is the mediatrix of all graces because of her intercession for us in heaven. What that means is that no grace accrues to us without her intercession. Through God's will, grace is not conferred on anyone without Mary's intercession." (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating, Copyright 1988; with Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur: Page 279) 

~But what does the Bible say? 

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) 

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) 



O god,. . . grant, we beseech Thee, that, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, His Mother, we may attain the joys of eternal life." [The New Saint Jospeph Baltimore Catechism, Official Revised Edition No. 2; Copyright 1962. : Page 7} 

~But what does the Bible say? 

"This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:11-12) 

"This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:11-12)

The Roman Catholic Church teaches Mary is our intercessor, our redeemer, and the only one through whom the grace necessary for salvation.  Yet the Word of God teaches that Jesus, and only Jesus, is our intercessor, our redeemer. Now since the Roman Catholic Church and the Word of God clearly contradict each other, both can't be right.  Thus we are forced to ask, "Who shall we believe - God or the Roman Catholic Church?" 

(thanking the Roman Catholic Observer for the above).


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> We are not "saved" by Mary at all.  Through her cooperation He came into the world



Your Church and its leaders say otherwise.

1.   “God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary.” (Pius IX: Encycl., Ubi primum, February 2, 1849.) — [p. 12, number 12]



2.    “O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee.” (Leo XIII: Encycl., Adiutricem populi, September 5, 1895.) — [p. 12, no. 13]



3.    “With equal truth it may be said that of the great treasury of all graces given to us by Our Lord—for grace and truth came by Jesus Christ—nothing comes to us except through Mary’s mediation, for such is God’s Will. Thus, as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so no one goes to Christ except through his mother.” (Leo XIII, Encycl., Octobri mense, September 22, 1891.) — [pp. 13,14, no. 19]



4.    “If it is impossible to separate what God has united, it is also certain that you cannot find Jesus except with Mary and through Mary.” (St. Pius X: Allocution to the Franciscans, November 12, 1910.) — [p. 14, no. 20]



5.   “Every day, as the Church herself recommends, priests will recite the Holy Rosary, which, by proposing for our meditation the mysteries of the Redeemer, leads us to Jesus through Mary.” (Pius XII: Exhortation, Menti nostri, September 23, 1950) — [p. 14, no. 23]



6.    “As the various mysteries present themselves one after another in the formula of the Rosary, for the meditation and contemplation of men’s minds, they also make clear what we owe to Mary for our reconciliation and salvation.” (Leo XIII: Encycl., Fidentum Piumque, September 20, 1896.) [pp. 15,16, no. 29]



7.    “God has committed to the Blessed Virgin Mary the treasury of all good things in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace and all salvation.” (Pius IX: Encycl., Ubi primum, February 2, 1894) — [p. 18, no. 38]



8.    “All our hope do we repose in the Most Blessed Virgin, in the all-fair and immaculate one who has crushed the most cruel serpent’s poisonous head and brought salvation to the world.” (Pius IX: Apost. Const., Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854.) — [p. 18, no. 39]



9.    “O Holy Mother of God; to thee we lift our prayers for thou, powerful and merciful, art the Mediatrix of our salvation.” (Leo XIII: Encycl., Jucunda semper, September 8, 1894.) — [p. 19, no. 43]



10.  “None, O Mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee.” (Leo XIII: Adiutricem populi, September 5, 1895) — [p. 19, no. 44]



11.  “Whenever we speak of Mary or speak to her, let us not forget that she is really our Mother, for through her we received divine life. She gave us Jesus himself, the source of grace. Mary is a Mediatrix and Dispenser of Graces.” (Pius XII: Radio message to the Italian Catholic Action, December 8, 1953) — [p. 22, no. 59]



12.  “Since Mary is ‘Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope,’ let us cry to her, ‘mourning and weeping in the vale of tears,’ and place ourselves and all that is ours confidently under her patronage.” (Pius XII: Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.) — [p. 25, no. 71]



13.  “The Catholic Church has always and with justice put all her hope and trust in the Mother of God.” (Leo XIII: Encyclical, Supreme Apostolatus, September 1, 1883.) — [p. 32, no. 104]



14.  “According to the common teaching of the Doctors, it was God’s design that the Blessed Virgin Mary, apparently absent from the public life of Jesus, should assist him when he was dying nailed to the Cross. Mary suffered and as it were, nearly died with her suffering Son; for the salvation of mankind she renounced her mother’s rights and, as far as it depended on her, offered her Son to placate divine justice; so we may well say that she with Christ redeemed mankind.” (Benedict XV: Letter, Inter sodalicia, May 22, 1918.) [p. 35; no. 119]



15.  “She it was who, immune from all sin, personal or inherited, and ever more closely united with her Son, offered him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father....” (Pius XII: Encyclical, Mystical corporis, June 29, 1943.) [p. 37; no. 128.]



16.  “... it is evident that she cannot do other than help most devotedly her dearest adopted sons at an hour at which it is necessary to secure for them salvation and sanctity for all eternity.” (Benedict XV: Letter, Inter sodalicia, May 22, 1918.) [p. 46; no. 171]



17.  “... It was before the eyes of Mary that the divine sacrifice for which she had borne and nurtured the Victim was to be finished. ... In the miracle of love, so that she might receive us as her sons ....” (Leo XIII: Encyclical, Jucunda semper, September 8, 1894.) [p. 50; no.187]



18.  “Mary is all powerful with her divine Son who grants all graces to mankind through her ...” (Benedict XV: Encyclical, Fausto appetente die, June 29, 1921.) [p. 59; no. 244]



19.  “From whom can we expect the salvation of the Christian people today if not from her of whom it is written that whosoever shall find her shall find life and shall have salvation from the Lord?” (Pius XI: Letter, Cum valde, Februrary 20, 1929.) [p. 59; no. 245]



COMMENT: The Scripture that is misapplied here to the Catholic Mary is Prov. 8:35 and really refers to wisdom.



20.  “To Mary, who reigns in heaven, the humble yet higher than any creature, near his throne, God grants the custody of the treasures of his manifold graces.” (Pius XII: Allocution, April 21, 1940) [p. 62; no. 268]



21.  “Are not Jesus and Mary the two sublime loves of Christian people?. ... One of them is the source and the other is the channel of grace for giving us a new birth into spiritual life.” (Pius XII: Allocution, April 21, 1940.) [p. 64; no. 277]



22.  “... Yet our manner of praying to the Blessed Virgin has something in common with our worship of God so that the Church even addressed to her the words with which we pray to God: ‘Have mercy on sinners.’” (Leo XIII: Encyclical, Augustissimae, September 12, 1897.) [p. 68; no. 302]



23.  “When we have recourse to Mary in prayer, we are having recourse to the Mother of Mercy, who is so well disposed towards us that, whatever the necessity that presses upon us, especially in attaining eternal life. ...” (Leo XIII: Encyclical, Magnae Dei Matris, September 8, 1892) [pp. 76,77; no. 350.]



24.  “Are you hoping one day to reach Paradise through the grace of perseverance in the last moment of your lives? Are you trusting to die in the grace of God? This grace also will come to you, as those devoted to Mary, through a smile of hers, as a ray from that Sun.” (Pius XII: Radio message, December 8, 1953.) [p. 83; no. 383.]

Utterly and truly blasphemous!!


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> Then I highly suggest you sit down, shut up, and let Him do His work. He certainly doesn't need your hindrance by creating division.



" Do you think that I came here to give peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! " ~ Jesus, Luke 12:51.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> She did not have to consent.  She submitted to the will of God in all things.  Even, as an unmarried woman, knowing the punishment for being found pregnant was to be stoned to death, she said, "yes".  She did not have divine foreknowledge, but she trusted that God would do all things according to His purpose.
> Did she know the Scriptures?  Sure, but how in the world do you think you would react if an angel of God appeared to you and asked you to do something that would get you stoned to death?  Think you might ask a question or two?



Is there any record of Jesus declaring that Mary had a share with Him as the Mediator between God and Man? 

Is there any record of anybody else in Scripture declaring that Mary had a share with Jesus as the Mediator between God and Man?


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> We are saved in the name of Christ Jesus. Mary cannot mediate anything without the grace given to her by God. Mary is dependent upon Christ, just as we all are.



Again, not what your Church and its leaders teaches.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> It is through Christ that anyone, Mary included, helps get a soul into heaven. That includes you Starman since you like to preach and evangelize so much. You know, participate with God and His work.



Again, that's not what your Church (and its leaders) teaches, Radiant. 

"(Mary) by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and Mediatrix." 

"Mary is called our mediatrix first because she cooperated in a unique way with Christ in his redemptive labors on earth. She is also mediatrix because she continues to intercede for us who are still working out our salvation on earth or suffering in purgatory." 

"Mary is the mediatrix of all graces because of her intercession for us in heaven. What that means is that no grace accrues to us without her intercession. Through God's will, grace is not conferred on anyone without Mary's intercession." 

 "O god,. . . grant, we beseech Thee, that, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, His Mother, we may attain the joys of eternal life." (from previous posts)

“St John Damascene had no hesitancy in addressing our Lady in these words: Pure and immaculate Queen, save me, and deliver me from eternal damnation. St Bonaventure called Mary the salvation of those who invoke her” (The Glories of Mary, St Alphonsus Liguori).


Mary, "...by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.... (CCC par. 969) 

St. Irenaeus : "being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 19)

"And likewise in our own day, Mary, with the ever merciful affection so characteristic of her maternal heart, wishes, through her efficacious intercession with God, to deliver her children from the sad and grief-laden troubles, from the tribulations, the anxiety, the difficulties, and the punishments of God's anger which afflict the world because of the sins of men. Wishing to restrain and to dispel the violent hurricane of evils which, as We lament from the bottom of Our heart, are everywhere afflicting the Church, Mary desires to transform Our sadness into joy. The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary." St. Bernard, In Nativit. S. Mariae de Aquaeductu.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> I would think some Catholics may be in a state of hell. I would like to think the majority go to heaven after a time in purgatory, and that a good few go straight to heaven. I can only speculate on the state of some souls.



God's Word says otherwise:

"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (2 Cor 5:8 KJV) 

This clearly states that there are only two states for believers: living (present in the body) and dead (absent from the body).  When believers are dead (absent from the body), then they are present with the Lord. There is no 'in-between' state such as Purgatory.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> If "it comes down to interpretation", then anyone can make it say anything they want (which is what actually has happened) but that was not the writer's intent...This is why we're soo concerned.



Exactly. And, you are concerned because the Church that Christ founded doesn't add up to what you interpret, right? 



ItalianScallion said:


> See more at: What is the origin of the Catholic Church?



And what authority does "got questions" have? None; they only have their own interpretations of scripture. 

Are you getting it yet?



Starman3000m said:


> First of all: Do you believe in your heart -absolutely 100%, without any doubt at all in everything the RCC teaches regarding your salvation?



Yep. Am I going to go to hell?



Starman3000m said:


> This is the point: *There Is Only One Truth* )



I agree. The question is, who holds the One Truth? You, him, her, or the Church that Christ founded?


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> The only thing she decides is if she is going to participate in the grace given her, no matter what that particular grace may be. She is a most perfect vessel. Just like all of us strive to be, right?



Nowhere does it say in Scripture that Mary is a most perfect vessel.  If anything, she stated she needed a Savior. If she had been perfect, surely she would not have needed a Savior.  And surely the Lord (or Mary herself or one of His Apostles) would have told us so. Tellingly, they didn't.


----------



## baydoll

(Italian Scallion_ If "it comes down to interpretation", then anyone can make it say anything they want (which is what actually has happened) but that was not the writer's intent...This is why we're soo concerned. )



> Radiant- Exactly. And, you are concerned because the Church that Christ founded doesn't add up to what you interpret, right?




And how do you know your Church is 'interpretating' it correctly? How do you know your Church is actually Whom it claims to be?


----------



## baydoll

Italian Scallion ~ First of all: Do you believe in your heart -absolutely 100%, without any doubt at all in everything the RCC teaches regarding your salvation? 



> Radiant~ Yep.



How did you come to this conclusion?


----------



## baydoll

Starman~ This is the point: There Is Only One Truth ) 



> I agree. The question is, who holds the One Truth? You, him, her, or the Church that Christ founded?__________________



And how do you know your Church is the one who holds the truth? How do you know your Church is the Church Christ founded? _________?


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> The only thing she decides is if she is going to participate in the grace given her, no matter what that particular grace may be. She is a most perfect vessel. Just like all of us strive to be, right?



No, we are to strive to be like Christ. 

"Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1

 “Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did.”  1 Jn. 2:6

Nowhere in God's Word does it tell us we need to strive to be like Mary.


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> Does the Bible condemn to hell anyone who fails to attend church, go to the sacrament of penance (iow, confession), eat Jesus in the Eucharist, or who eats meat on Fridays, uses birth control or gets divorced and remarried?
> 
> Isn't it interesting that the Roman Catholic Church has attached a price tag, in terms of either the performance of certain rituals and good works (often both), and even money (mass cards) to that which the God of the Bible gives for free?



In short, no.



baydoll said:


> " Do you think that I came here to give peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! " ~ Jesus, Luke 12:51.



Well you just keep being all Christ-like baydoll and win souls for Him by your division, most assuredly you're doing a great job! 



baydoll said:


> Again, not what your Church and its leaders teaches.





baydoll said:


> Again, that's not what your Church (and its leaders) teaches, Radiant.



What you quote are encyclicals, which are not ex-cathedra prouncements so not necessarily binding on the faithful. Of course, you wouldn't know that as you are a non-Catholic. One who, unfortunately, attempts to tell Catholics and others what the Church teaches and believes...and erroneously at that.



baydoll said:


> God's Word says otherwise:
> 
> "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (2 Cor 5:8 KJV)
> 
> This clearly states that there are only two states for believers: living (present in the body) and dead (absent from the body).  *When believers are dead (absent from the body), then they are present with the Lord. *There is no 'in-between' state such as Purgatory.



We would will rather be absent from the body and present with the Lord. Period. I have no problem with that. :shrug: 

I don't know where you come up with the conclusion that this presents only two states for believers, except that you have an agenda and want to fit the scriptures to it, "God's Word says differently according to me, baydoll". In fact, this is downright funny now that I think about it, because this is another example of why there is need for authority. Jesus knew it and left it with us; He is not the author of confusion. You, baydoll, are confused. Seriously confused.



baydoll said:


> Nowhere does it say in Scripture that Mary is a most perfect vessel.  If anything, she stated she needed a Savior. If she had been perfect, surely she would not have needed a Savior.  And surely the Lord (or Mary herself or one of His Apostles) would have told us so. Tellingly, they didn't.



Yes, as stated before, she needed a savior. She was the perfect disciple of Christ. What part of that don't you get? Do you even read these threads or do you just post to hear yourself talk and make us repeat ourselves?



baydoll said:


> And how do you know your Church is 'interpretating' it correctly? How do you know your Church is actually Whom it claims to be?



Because it's history is traced back to Christ Himself. "Upon this rock...the gates of hell shall not prevail". baydoll, you won't prevail.



baydoll said:


> How did you come to this conclusion?



Re-read my posts (if you ever bothered to begin with).



baydoll said:


> And how do you know your Church is the one who holds the truth? How do you know your Church is the Church Christ founded? _________?



See above.



baydoll said:


> No, we are to strive to be like Christ.
> 
> "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1
> 
> “Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did.”  1 Jn. 2:6
> 
> Nowhere in God's Word does it tell us we need to strive to be like Mary.



You do realize, don't you, that Paul is exhorting others to be like him?  

If Paul is of Christ how much more so Mary, and who walked as Jesus did more than Mary? Hey, if you don't want to be a vessel for Christ, well then, what can I say? I'm sad for you. I'm also sad for you that you cannot use reason when reading scripture. You are just a sad, sad woman.


----------



## libby

Radiant1 said:


> In short, no.
> 
> 
> 
> Well you just keep being all Christ-like baydoll and win souls for Him by your division, most assuredly you're doing a great job!
> 
> Babydoll thinks she is being Christ-like, R1.  She thinks it's very clever to repeat, over and over, "Yeah, but how do you _know_?"  "How do you _know."_  Very elementary was of having an exchange to my way of thinking.
> 
> What you quote are encyclicals, which are not ex-cathedra prouncements so not necessarily binding on the faithful. Of course, you wouldn't know that as you are a non-Catholic. One who, unfortunately, attempts to tell Catholics and others what the Church teaches and believes...and erroneously at that.
> 
> Babydoll does not know what the church teaches and I'm really starting to think that she doesn't have the intellectual prowess to absorb it anyway.  It's that milk before meat thing; she's not ready for meat.
> 
> We would will rather be absent from the body and present with the Lord. Period. I have no problem with that. :shrug:
> 
> I don't know where you come up with the conclusion that this presents only two states for believers, except that you have an agenda and want to fit the scriptures to it, "God's Word says differently according to me, baydoll". In fact, this is downright funny now that I think about it, because this is another example of why there is need for authority. Jesus knew it and left it with us; He is not the author of confusion. You, baydoll, are confused. Seriously confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, as stated before, she needed a savior. She was the perfect disciple of Christ. What part of that don't you get? Do you even read these threads or do you just post to hear yourself talk and make us repeat ourselves?
> Pearls before swine, R1.  Pearls before swine.
> 
> 
> Because it's history is traced back to Christ Himself. "Upon this rock...the gates of hell shall not prevail". baydoll, you won't prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> Re-read my posts (if you ever bothered to begin with).
> 
> 
> 
> See above.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize, don't you, that Paul is exhorting others to be like him?
> 
> If Paul is of Christ how much more so Mary, and who walked as Jesus did more than Mary? Hey, if you don't want to be a vessel for Christ, well then, what can I say? I'm sad for you. I'm also sad for you that you cannot use reason when reading scripture. You are just a sad, sad woman.



Babydoll has mother issues, I think.  She is caustic and proud, and she likes to think that Jesus Himself would be proud of her pathetic challenges to 2000 years of great theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas.  Their intellect is only second to their great humility and charity, neither of which Babydoll possesses.


----------



## Bird Dog

libby said:


> Babydoll has mother issues, I think.  She is caustic and proud, and she likes to think that Jesus Himself would be proud of her pathetic challenges to 2000 years of great theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas.  Their intellect is only second to their great humility and charity, neither of which Babydoll possesses.



I think all the Mary haters on this thread have Mother issues.

I am back and will post some of my less than Spiritual comments to the bashers of the Roman Catholic Church.

Did you have brunch with IS?


----------



## Zguy28

Bird Dog said:


> I think all the Mary haters on this thread have Mother issues.
> 
> I am back and will post some of my less than Spiritual comments to the bashers of the Roman Catholic Church.
> 
> Did you have brunch with IS?


Look out, here comes da Popa!


----------



## Bavarian

baydoll said:


> "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, *the Council teaches that the church, a pilgrim now on earth, it is necessary for salvation*: (Catechism of the Catholic Church; #846, Page 224.)
> 
> "Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity *that outside her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins."* (Papal Bull UNAM SANCTUM, Pope Boniface VIII, November 18, 1302)
> 
> Thought I'd share.


I think she was being kind,  everyone knows "Extra eclessia null Sanctus"

And Christ gave the apostles the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven which gave them the power to forgive sins or hold them bound, therefore The Church can declare precepts to be followed.


----------



## Bavarian

baydoll said:


> Does the Bible condemn to hell anyone who fails to attend church, go to the sacrament of penance (iow, confession), eat Jesus in the Eucharist, or who eats meat on Fridays, uses birth control or gets divorced and remarried?
> 
> Isn't it interesting that the Roman Catholic Church has attached a price tag, in terms of either the performance of certain rituals and good works (often both), and even money (mass cards) to that which the God of the Bible gives for free?



Following the commandments and the precepts of The Church show that one cares and respects God's will.  Giving alms to the poor is like giving to God what so ever you do to the least of my people that you do unto Me.


----------



## Starman3000m

*There Is Only One Truth*



Radiant1 said:


> ...I agree. The question is, who holds the One Truth? You, him, her, or the Church that Christ founded?



Truthfully?  It is *NOT* the RCC at all; It is the New Testament *Jesus Christ* who holds The Truth!

*Jesus Alone is the Author and Finisher of our True Faith:*


> Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2)



*We proclaim that Jesus Alone is our Helper and Mediator:*


> So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me. (Hebrews 13:6)
> 
> For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5)



*The Power of God's Holy Spirit is sent to indwell True Believers as our Comforter and Teacher in God's Truth:*



> But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)
> 
> But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 John 2:27)




The RCC is teaching an erroneous and blasphemous route in your religious path which diverts the honor and glory that belongs to Christ alone and adds Mary as "co-Mediator" and "Helper".

The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.



> For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
> 
> But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
> As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)



*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## libby

Bird Dog said:


> I think all the Mary haters on this thread have Mother issues.
> 
> I am back and will post some of my less than Spiritual comments to the bashers of the Roman Catholic Church.
> 
> Did you have brunch with IS?



Nope.  Didn't get there again.  I go to an 11am Mass, so getting the kids settled and back out would get me to RR right when he's about to leave.  I really would like to go, though, so perhaps I'll try the 5pm vigil next week so I'm free to go to RR.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> *There Is Only One Truth*
> 
> 
> 
> Truthfully?  It is *NOT* the RCC at all; It is the New Testament *Jesus Christ* who holds The Truth!
> 
> *Jesus Alone is the Author and Finisher of our True Faith:*
> 
> 
> *We proclaim that Jesus Alone is our Helper and Mediator:*
> 
> 
> *The Power of God's Holy Spirit is sent to indwell True Believers as our Comforter and Teacher in God's Truth:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The RCC is teaching an erroneous and blasphemous route in your religious path which diverts the honor and glory that belongs to Christ alone and adds Mary as "co-Mediator" and "Helper".
> 
> The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.
> 
> 
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’
will enter the kingdom of heaven,
but _only the one who* does *the will of my Father in heaven._Many will say to me on that day,
‘Lord, Lord,* did we not prophesy in your name?
Did we not drive out demons in your name?
Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
Then I will declare to them solemnly,
‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’*

"Upon this rock I will build my _church_". 
"The _church_ is the pillar and bulwark of Truth."

The NT Jesus never wrote a book and never instructed anyone to write a book.  
The NT Jesus did establish a church with Himself as the foundation/cornerstone.

The NT Jesus did change the name of Simon to Peter, which is rock.  Just as Abraham because a father of many because God had a magnificent plan to build a human family through the chosen people, so too did he make Peter a rock on which to build the family through the church.
Neither of those positions negates that God the Father is the ultimate Father, nor that Jesus is the Primary Rock.


----------



## Bavarian

Radiant1 for some reason, seems not too strong in her faith.  She does not sound all that Catholic anymore.

Are you a product of post VII watering down of the Faith?  Or are the Protestants getting to you?  If so, resist for what does it profit a man to gain friends with the heretics, but lose one's soul?

And the cafeteria is closed!


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’
> will enter the kingdom of heaven,
> but _only the one who* does *the will of my Father in heaven._Many will say to me on that day,
> ‘Lord, Lord,* did we not prophesy in your name?
> Did we not drive out demons in your name?
> Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
> Then I will declare to them solemnly,
> ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’*
> 
> "Upon this rock I will build my _church_".
> "The _church_ is the pillar and bulwark of Truth."
> 
> The NT Jesus never wrote a book and never instructed anyone to write a book.
> The NT Jesus did establish a church with Himself as the foundation/cornerstone.
> 
> The NT Jesus did change the name of Simon to Peter, which is rock.  Just as Abraham because a father of many because God had a magnificent plan to build a human family through the chosen people, so too did he make Peter a rock on which to build the family through the church.
> Neither of those positions negates that God the Father is the ultimate Father, nor that Jesus is the Primary Rock.



The "Church" that Jesus established is the Spiritual Church upon this earth. Believers are empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit as the Helper to all who have repented and placed complete faith and trust in the Lordship of Jesus Christ within their life. 

Faith, not "denomination" is the determining factor.  Placing faith in the True Jesus is the assurance that saves a person's soul.



> *1 John, Chapter 5, verses:*
> 
> 9: If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
> 10: He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
> 11: And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
> 12: He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
> 13: These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.



The RCC is making God out to be a liar in its claim that Mary is also part of God's Plan of Salvation and that she is to be considered as a co-Mediator/co-Redemptrix.  That takes the focus off of Jesus and onto Mary. 

The written words of the Holy Bible contain all the essential truths that brings a person to the Salvation Grace that God offers through the Atoning Blood of Christ and there is no mention that Mary would ever join Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," Benefactress," co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," etc.

Jesus is the resurrected Saviour of mankind; There Is Proof of that.  
There is no Biblical proof that Mary resurrected and was assumed up to Heaven.  *No Proof - No Truth!*

The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.



> For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
> 
> But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
> As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)



*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## libby

Bavarian said:


> Radiant1 for some reason, seems not too strong in her faith.  She does not sound all that Catholic anymore.
> 
> Are you a product of post VII watering down of the Faith?  Or are the Protestants getting to you?  If so, resist for what does it profit a man to gain friends with the heretics, but lose one's soul?
> 
> And the cafeteria is closed!



OH MY GOODNESS!!!  How dare you!  R1 has done nothing but a great job defending the holy faith!  
You've got some serious issues with charity yourself, buddy.  Go to the Sacrament of Confession.  Confess not only the sins of commission, but what you lack in virtue, as well.
IMHO, you owe R1 an apology.  You have no business indicting her faith.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> The "Church" that Jesus established is the Spiritual Church upon this earth. Believers are empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit as the Helper to all who have repented and placed complete faith and trust in the Lordship of Jesus Christ within their life.
> 
> Faith, not "denomination" is the determining factor.  Placing faith in the True Jesus is the assurance that saves a person's soul.
> 
> 
> 
> The RCC is making God out to be a liar in its claim that Mary is also part of God's Plan of Salvation and that she is to be considered as a co-Mediator/co-Redemptrix.  That takes the focus off of Jesus and onto Mary.
> 
> The written words of the Holy Bible contain all the essential truths that brings a person to the Salvation Grace that God offers through the Atoning Blood of Christ and there is no mention that Mary would ever join Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," Benefactress," co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," etc.
> 
> Jesus is the resurrected Saviour of mankind; There Is Proof of that.
> There is no Biblical proof that Mary resurrected and was assumed up to Heaven.  *No Proof - No Truth!*
> 
> The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.
> 
> 
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’
will enter the kingdom of heaven,
but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.Many will say to me on that day,
‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name?
Did we not drive out demons in your name?
Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
Then I will declare to them solemnly,
‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’

"Upon this rock I will build my church". 
"The church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth."

The NT Jesus never wrote a book and never instructed anyone to write a book. 
The NT Jesus did establish a church with Himself as the foundation/cornerstone.

The NT Jesus did change the name of Simon to Peter, which is rock. Just as Abraham because a father of many because God had a magnificent plan to build a human family through the chosen people, so too did he make Peter a rock on which to build the family through the church.
Neither of those positions negates that God the Father is the ultimate Father, nor that Jesus is the Primary Rock.

There is no Biblical proof that the Bible is the source of Truth.  That is in direct contradiction to what the NT Jesus taught, which is that "the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth."
Your Bible is your mediator to Jesus Christ.  You preach salvation via a book that was never instructed by Christ to be written.
You have taken the focus off of Jesus and given undo exaltation to an inanimate object, a book.

There is only ONE TRUTH, SM, and you have just a piece of it.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Exactly. And, you are concerned because the Church that Christ founded doesn't add up to what you interpret, right?


The church that Christ founded adds up perfectly to my interpretation. Exactly what a church should be. Think about it: If Christ founded a church, wouldn't you think that it would be in perfect agreement with HIS teachings?


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> And what authority does "got questions" have? None; they only have their own interpretations of scripture.


Radiant1, this had nothing to do with Scripture. The Bible does not teach us the origin of the RCC. "Got questions" uses the same historical information that is available to everyone else. If you want to, please point out where they are in error about it's origins.


libby said:


> Nope.  Didn't get there again.  I go to an 11am Mass, so getting the kids settled and back out would get me to RR right when he's about to leave.  I really would like to go, though, so perhaps I'll try the 5pm vigil next week so I'm free to go to RR.


Missed you today. It took 8 pretty waitresses to console me...The doctor said I should be fine in a few days...

Next week my normal Sunday evening plans won't be happening. If you let me know by Saturday night that you'll be there for certain, I'll hang out longer than I usually do. I know everyone there so it won't be a problem. Either PM or post it in this thread.


----------



## baydoll

Does the Bible condemn to hell anyone who fails to attend church, go to the sacrament of penance (iow, confession), eat Jesus in the Eucharist, or who eats meat on Fridays, uses birth control or gets divorced and remarried? 

Isn't it interesting that the Roman Catholic Church has attached a price tag, in terms of either the performance of certain rituals and good works (often both), and even money (mass cards) to that which the God of the Bible gives for free? 



Radiant1 said:


> In short, no.



So what happens if you deliberately miss mass on Sunday or 'holy day of obligation', Radiant? What happens if you challenge the Pope's authority, or if deliberately eat meat during times it is forbidden (if your Church hasn't changed this rule already..), or if you refuse to fast the required length of time before taking communion? Where will you end up if you practice birth control, or get divorced and remarried? 

And actually Radiant, your Church claims otherwise:


"According to the way God has willed that we be saved, the sacraments are necessary for salvation." The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism, John A. Hardon, S.J. ©1981 page 225, question 1119. 

Sunday is to be a day of gladness and rest from work. The duty to assist at Mass is a grave obligation." The Roman Catholic person knows that the expression 'grave obligation' means that he or she will be condemned to Hell for deliberately missing Mass on a Sunday or a 'holy day of obligation.' Rome's response to the commandment to 'keep holy the Lord's day' is to demand, under pain of mortal sin, that we "assist at Mass on Sundays and to abstain from all unnecessary servile work." The Question and Answer Catechism Catholic Catechism, Page 133. 

"We declare, announce and define that it is altogether necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Papal Bull UNAM SANCTUM, Pope Boniface VIII, November 18, 1302) 


Never mind there is not a shred of evidence in the Scripture that Jesus instituted these Roman Catholic Church's seven sacraments nor state that we need to follow them in order to be saved.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> " Do you think that I came here to give peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! " ~ Jesus, Luke 12:51.





> Well you just keep being all Christ-like baydoll and win souls for Him by your division, most assuredly you're doing a great job!



Again, Jesus says there will be division, Radiant. True Christians who follow Christ may be divisive because Jesus came to divide believers from the non believers, the true church from the false (the RCC) even dividing among family members (Matthew 10:34-38). And it is not my job to win souls Hon, that's the Holy Spirit's job. My job is to speak out in defense of God's truth and expose the lies of the Counterfeit.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Again, not what your Church and its leaders teaches.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Again, that's not what your Church (and its leaders) teaches, Radiant.





> Radiant: What you quote are encyclicals, which are not ex-cathedra prouncements so not necessarily binding on the faithful. Of course, you wouldn't know that as you are a non-Catholic. One who, unfortunately, attempts to tell Catholics and others what the Church teaches and believes...and erroneously at that.



Oh good ! So we don't need to follow the Roman Catholic Church or what the Popes tell us to get into Heaven! Whew! I'm glad you cleared that up for us Radiant! 

So if they're not 'binding', why have them in the first place? Isn't your Church supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit Whom is Truth? If these things are not binding, wouldn't these pronoucements and teachings be misleading? Wouldn't that in itself not be very truthful? 

Actually I was married to a Catholic for 25 years and the majority if not all of my friends throughout my life have been Catholic, Radiant. The majority of my friends now are all ex-Catholics. And anyway, one does not have to be Catholic in order to know what your Church teaches and believes, dear. 

As for erroneously, what teachings would these be?


----------



## baydoll

> Me: God's Word says otherwise:
> 
> "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (2 Cor 5:8 KJV)
> 
> This clearly states that there are only two states for believers: living (present in the body) and dead (absent from the body). When believers are dead (absent from the body), then they are present with the Lord. There is no 'in-between' state such as Purgatory.





> Radiant- I have no problem with that.
> 
> I don't know where you come up with the conclusion that this presents only two states for believers, except that you have an agenda and want to fit the scriptures to it, "God's Word says differently according to me, baydoll". In fact, this is downright funny now that I think about it, because this is another example of why there is need for authority. Jesus knew it and left it with us; He is not the author of confusion. You, baydoll, are confused. Seriously confused.



Okay...so how does your Church interprete the above verse, Radiant? I'd like to see an official interpretation of 2 Cor 5:8.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Nowhere does it say in Scripture that Mary is a most perfect vessel. If anything, she stated she needed a Savior. If she had been perfect, surely she would not have needed a Savior. And surely the Lord (or Mary herself or one of His Apostles) would have told us so. Tellingly, they didn't.





> Radiant-Yes, as stated before, she needed a savior. She was the perfect disciple of Christ. What part of that don't you get? Do you even read these threads or do you just post to hear yourself talk and make us repeat ourselves?



And where does it say in Scripture that she was the 'perfect disciple of Christ'? I don't recall you answering that one.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> And how do you know your Church is 'interpretating' it correctly? How do you know your Church is actually Whom it claims to be?





> Because it's history is traced back to Christ Himself. "Upon this rock...the gates of hell shall not prevail". baydoll, you won't prevail.



So in other words, you have no clue. You just blindly accept anything and everything they tell you. Check your brain at the door, you will be indoctrinated/taught/trained well, grasshoppa. 

This is right out of the Classic Cult 101 Rule Book, Radiant.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> How did you come to this conclusion?





> Radiant-Re-read my posts (if you ever bothered to begin with).





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by baydoll
> And how do you know your Church is the one who holds the truth? How do you know your Church is the Church Christ founded? _________?





> Radiant- See above.



Just because your Church claims this doesn't make it true, Radiant. Oh duh on me! I keep forgetting one is never, ever allowed to question the Great and Powerful RCC.  


Actually I've read your posts Radiant and the only response you've given me in regards to those questions is your extremely old and boring and lame and tired "Because it's history is traced back to Christ Himself. "Upon this rock...the gates of hell shall not prevail" typical and classic non-answer cult response.  

Big deal. All 'Christian' cults say the exact same things, Dear.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> No, we are to strive to be like Christ.
> 
> "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1
> 
> “Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did.” 1 Jn. 2:6
> 
> Nowhere in God's Word does it tell us we need to strive to be like Mary.





> Radiant-You do realize, don't you, that Paul is exhorting others to be like him?
> 
> If Paul is of Christ how much more so Mary, and who walked as Jesus did more than Mary? Hey, if you don't want to be a vessel for Christ, well then, what can I say? I'm sad for you. I'm also sad for you that you cannot use reason when reading scripture. You are just a sad, sad woman.



And Who is Paul imitating? Mary or Christ?


----------



## baydoll

Bird Dog said:


> I think all the Mary haters on this thread have Mother issues.
> 
> I am back and will post some of my less than Spiritual comments to the bashers of the Roman Catholic Church.
> 
> Did you have brunch with IS?



Mary haters? 

Bear false witness much, Bird Dog?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Babydoll has mother issues, I think.  She is caustic and proud, and she likes to think that Jesus Himself would be proud of her pathetic challenges to 2000 years of great theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas.  Their intellect is only second to their great humility and charity, neither of which Babydoll possesses.



Speaking of Augustine, did you know that Augustine believed that Mary died because she was a sinner?



> "Mary, springing from Adam, died because of sin; and the flesh of our Lord, derived from Mary, died to take away sin." (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii, c. 24).



And that he believed Scripture is the supreme (highest) authority? 



> "This mediator (Jesus Christ), first through the Prophets, then by his own lips, afterwards through the Apostles, revealed whatever he considered necessary. He also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all those truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn." (City of God, copyright 1958 by Fathers of the Church, Inc., edited by Vernon J. Bourke, ISBN 0-385-02910-1, page 207).


and that Scripture alone must be used to determine the limits of what the Church will teach?




> "This mediator (Jesus Christ), first through the Prophets, then by his own lips, afterwards through the Apostles, revealed whatever he considered necessary. He also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all those truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn." (City of God, copyright 1958 by Fathers of the Church, Inc., edited by Vernon J. Bourke, ISBN 0-385-02910-1, page 207).


So much for the unanimous consent of your so-called Church leaders....


----------



## baydoll

Bavarian said:


> I think she was being kind,  everyone knows "Extra eclessia null Sanctus"
> 
> And Christ gave the apostles the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven which gave them the power to forgive sins or hold them bound, therefore The Church can declare precepts to be followed.



When did Christ 'give' them these 'keys' Bavarian?


----------



## baydoll

Bavarian said:


> Following the commandments and the precepts of The Church show that one cares and respects God's will.  Giving alms to the poor is like giving to God what so ever you do to the least of my people that you do unto Me.



Where does it say in the Bible that the seven sacraments are necessary for salvation? 

Where does it say in the Bible that giving alms to the poor is necessary for salvation?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’
> will enter the kingdom of heaven,
> but _only the one who* does *the will of my Father in heaven._Many will say to me on that day,
> ‘Lord, Lord,* did we not prophesy in your name?
> Did we not drive out demons in your name?
> Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
> Then I will declare to them solemnly,
> ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’*



And what is the 'will' of the Father?


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> Speaking of Augustine, did you know that Augustine believed that Mary died because she was a sinner?



Are you kidding me?  That is the most out of context one could have possibly taken that quote from Augustine.  The tone of your posts has taken a turn for the worse again.  I suppose it will take someone other than Libby, Radiant, me, Bavarian.....to point it out to you again.  Enjoy your day.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> "Upon this rock I will build my _church_".



Again, why did Jesus use the word 'petros'  for Peter and petra for Him?


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> Are you kidding me?  That is the most out of context one could have possibly taken that quote from Augustine.  The tone of your posts has taken a turn for the worse again.  I suppose it will take someone other than Libby, Radiant, me, Bavarian.....to point it out to you again.  Enjoy your day.



Oh? Care to show me how I took that out of context?


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> Oh? Care to show me how I took that out of context?



Do you think he really meant that her sinning was *THE* reason for her death?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> "The church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth."



Notice if you will this passage uses an architectural analogy in which the church is the _pillar_ resting _under_ the authority of Scripture, not the other way around. The True Church (not the RCC) will truly stand from generation to generation and their foundation is on *the Word of God itself*. 




> ”I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—  not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:6-9



The above passage shows us  the reason WHY churches (including the RCC) cannot be the ultimate authority, because it is fallible (case in point, the 7 churches of Revelation).   ALL of us including the RCC leadership are made up of sinful, fallen creatures that can and do pervert and twist the Scriptures.  So instead, to safeguard God's Truth as written down in His Word,  the church must hold up (support) the Word of God  (be the “pillar and foundation of truth”) to use the passage you quoted in its proper context. The church supports the Word and is the custodian of spiritual truth, not make up new doctrines as they see fit as your Church has done. 

(edited: adding afterthoughts.)


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> Do you think he really meant that her sinning was *THE* reason for her death?



So you admit as does Augustine, that she was a sinner?


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> So you admit as does Augustine, that she was a sinner?



I admit nothing of the sort nor does Augustine.


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> I admit nothing of the sort nor does Augustine.






> Do you think he really meant that her sinning was THE reason for her death?



So what do YOU think Augustine meant by that quote?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> The NT Jesus never wrote a book and never instructed anyone to write a book.




"saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and,  "What you see, *write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia*:  to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea." Rev 1:11

"*Write the things which you have seen*, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this." Rev 1:19


*To the angel of the church of Ephesus write*,'These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands: Rev 2:1


Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, "*Write:* 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.' " "Yes," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them." Rev 14:13

Then he said to me, "*Write:* 'Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!' " And he said to me, "These are the true sayings of God." Rev 19:9


Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "*Write, for these words are true and faithful*." Rev 21:5


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> So what do YOU think Augustine meant by that quote?




Quite frankly I think you could replace "Mary" with any name.  Careful using Augustine to prove _your_ point.  He proves _my_ point on alot more issues.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> The NT Jesus did establish a church with Himself as the foundation/cornerstone.
> 
> The NT Jesus did change the name of Simon to Peter, which is rock.  Just as Abraham because a father of many because God had a magnificent plan to build a human family through the chosen people, so too did he make Peter a rock on which to build the family through the church.
> Neither of those positions negates that God the Father is the ultimate Father, nor that Jesus is the Primary Rock.



I have a couple of questions?

Is there historical proof that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome?

Did any of the ECFs declare Peter as the first Bishop of Rome?

Did Jesus commend or condemn the concept of one Apostle having supreme authority over the other Apostles?

Is there Biblical proof that Jesus declared that the supreme power of the Bishop of Rome could be passed-down to his successors?


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> Quite frankly I think you could replace "Mary" with any name.  Careful using Augustine to prove _your_ point.  He proves _my_ point on alot more issues.



But doesn't that negate your Church's  position that she never interprets Scripture, other than according to 'the unanimous consent of the Fathers' ?


----------



## onel0126

baydoll said:


> But doesn't that negate your Church's  position that she never interprets Scripture, other than according to 'the unanimous consent of the Fathers' ?



In a word, no.  More later.


----------



## baydoll

onel0126 said:


> In a word, no.  More later.



You just contradicted yourself AND your Church, one.


----------



## Zguy28

This thread is just too hard to keep up with. An entire page is nothing but Baydoll's machinegun-like posts.  Before I bow out of this thread, I will address one post though:



Bavarian said:


> Radiant1 for some reason, seems not too strong in her faith.  She does not sound all that Catholic anymore.
> 
> Are you a product of post VII watering down of the Faith?  Or are the Protestants getting to you?  If so, resist for what does it profit a man to gain friends with the heretics, but lose one's soul?


et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos



> And the cafeteria is closed!



The cafeteria may be closed, but that's ok because I don't need it. I've got the bread that came down from heaven. Spiritual manna for my soul, that is Jesus Christ crucified, a propitiation for my sins, so that in His righteousness alone I may attain heaven, by grace, and approach God's throne with confidence.

John 10:27-29
27  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
28  *I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.*
29  My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

Amen.


----------



## libby

I feel compelled to re-post my post #494, lest anyone lump me in with Bavarian.



> OH MY GOODNESS!!! How dare you! R1 has done nothing but a great job defending the holy faith!
> You've got some serious issues with charity yourself, buddy. Go to the Sacrament of Confession. Confess not only the sins of commission, but what you lack in virtue, as well.
> IMHO, you owe R1 an apology. You have no business indicting her faith.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Truthfully?  It is *NOT* the RCC at all; It is the New Testament *Jesus Christ* who holds The Truth!



Jesus is the Truth; however, neither you or I lived during His time here on Earth, so from where do you come to know Jesus? I mean, you could say the Holy Spirit enlightens you to scripture interpretations, but so does everyone else, and not everyone else agrees with you. That's why Christ left us His Church, which is called Catholic.



Starman3000m said:


> *Jesus Alone is the Author and Finisher of our True Faith:*





> Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2)



I couldn't agree more. 



Starman3000m said:


> *We proclaim that Jesus Alone is our Helper and Mediator:*





> So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me. (Hebrews 13:6)
> 
> For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5)



Let's look at that passage in full.

1Timothy 1-8 
1 First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, 
2 for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity. 
3 This is good and pleasing to God our savior, 
4 who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. 
5 For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, 
6 who gave himself as ransom for all. This was the testimony 2 at the proper time. 
7 For this I was appointed preacher and apostle (I am speaking the truth, I am not lying), teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. 
8 It is my wish, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger or argument. 

You do realize don't you, that Paul is hereby asking the faithful in verses 1-2to mediate for others, which is good and pleasing to the Father. Verse 5 is understood that only God could redeem us through our savior Christ Jesus, and so it is. The Catholic Church claims nothing different. Mary mediates for us as Paul does and as Paul asks us to do for each other.



Starman3000m said:


> *The Power of God's Holy Spirit is sent to indwell True Believers as our Comforter and Teacher in God's Truth:*





> But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)
> 
> But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 John 2:27)



I don't see anything in that passage about "True Believers". Nevertheless, is it safe to assume that you think a "True  Believer" someone who only believes as you do?



Starman3000m said:


> The RCC is teaching an erroneous and blasphemous route in your religious path which diverts the honor and glory that belongs to Christ alone and adds Mary as "co-Mediator" and "Helper".
> 
> The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.



According to you who has no authority whatsoever but yet wants others to follow you. Now, refer to my first comment in this very post and re-read it.


----------



## ItalianScallion

baydoll said:


> "saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and,  "What you see, *write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia*:  to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea." Rev 1:11
> "*Write the things which you have seen*, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this." Rev 1:19
> *To the angel of the church of Ephesus write*,'These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands: Rev 2:1
> Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, "*Write:* 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.' " "Yes," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them." Rev 14:13
> Then he said to me, "*Write:* 'Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!' " And he said to me, "These are the true sayings of God." Rev 19:9
> Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "*Write, for these words are true and faithful*." Rev 21:5


There are soo many more but these are good quotes Baydoll! Libby...you're digging yourself a bigger hole...Please stop!

Jesus read from scrolls with the Scriptures written on it. Not that He had to, but why do you think He did this? (The oral tradition had changed over the years. The written word was more dependable and He wanted the people to do the same thing He was doing).

Luke 4:16 "...and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written..."

Psalm 40:7, Hebrews 10:7: "Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, my God."

Ezekiel 2 & 3: "And you Son of Man...Do not be afraid of what they say or be terrified by them, though they are a rebellious people. You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious. Then I looked, and I saw a hand stretched out to me. In it was a scroll which he unrolled before me. On both sides of it were written words of lament and mourning and woe..."

1 Timothy 4:13: "Until I come, *devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture,* to preaching and to teaching..."
You can't read it unless it is written down...


----------



## Zguy28

ItalianScallion said:


> There are soo many more but these are good quotes Baydoll! Libby...you're digging yourself a bigger hole...Please stop!
> 
> Jesus read from scrolls with the Scriptures written on it. Not that He had to, but why do you think He did this? (The oral tradition had changed over the years. The written word was more dependable and He wanted the people to do the same thing He was doing).
> 
> Luke 4:16 "...and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written..."
> 
> Psalm 40:7, Hebrews 10:7: "Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, my God."
> 
> Ezekiel 2 & 3: "And you Son of Man...Do not be afraid of what they say or be terrified by them, though they are a rebellious people. You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious. Then I looked, and I saw a hand stretched out to me. In it was a scroll which he unrolled before me. On both sides of it were written words of lament and mourning and woe..."
> 
> 1 Timothy 4:13: "Until I come, *devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture,* to preaching and to teaching..."
> You can't read it unless it is written down...


Not to mention that in the gospels themselves, it is recorded that Jesus agreed with the Jews that Scripture was infallible when He said "and Scripture cannot be broken."(John 10:35)


----------



## libby

ItalianScallion said:


> There are soo many more but these are good quotes Baydoll! Libby...you're digging yourself a bigger hole...Please stop!
> 
> Jesus read from scrolls with the Scriptures written on it. Not that He had to, but why do you think He did this? (The oral tradition had changed over the years. The written word was more dependable and He wanted the people to do the same thing He was doing).
> 
> Luke 4:16 "...and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written..."
> 
> Psalm 40:7, Hebrews 10:7: "Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, my God."
> 
> Ezekiel 2 & 3: "And you Son of Man...Do not be afraid of what they say or be terrified by them, though they are a rebellious people. You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious. Then I looked, and I saw a hand stretched out to me. In it was a scroll which he unrolled before me. On both sides of it were written words of lament and mourning and woe..."
> 
> 1 Timothy 4:13: "Until I come, *devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture,* to preaching and to teaching..."
> You can't read it unless it is written down...



The Scriptures discussed in the NT are in reference to the OT Scriptures.  Anything from Rev. concerns only what was said to John, the writer of Rev., which was all after the death of the rest of the Apostles.  There is no command that they record before they died.
Find me where Jesus told His Apostles to put the deposit of faith into book form.  He didn't, end of story.  He built a church; an authoritative church.


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> Not to mention that in the gospels themselves, it is recorded that Jesus agreed with the Jews that Scripture was infallible when He said "and Scripture cannot be broken."(John 10:35)



No one here claims the Scriptures are in error.  Only the interpretations thereof, which is why we need the authority of the church.
I just don't get how it's not abundantly clear that myriad interpretations is the result of SS.


----------



## Zguy28

libby said:


> No one here claims the Scriptures are in error.  Only the interpretations thereof, which is why we need the authority of the church.
> I just don't get how it's not abundantly clear that myriad interpretations is the result of SS.



I hear you. But, I just don't get how it's not abundantly clear that the Roman Catholic church is not the church that Peter, Paul, and John wrote about.

I'd rather have myriad interpretations on secondary issues, than one humongous misinterpretation on a myriad of issues.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Jesus is the Truth; however, neither you or I lived during His time here on Earth, so from where do you come to know Jesus? I mean, you could say the Holy Spirit enlightens you to scripture interpretations, but so does everyone else, and not everyone else agrees with you. That's why Christ left us His Church, which is called Catholic.



The only thing that the RCC has done is to establish a uniform indoctrination that is incumbent upon its parishioners to abide by!  Claiming that it is the "true church that Christ built" is again only according to the Vatican control over you and others who are not allowed to question its authority.  The Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Muslims, etc. all claim the same in order to keep tight control over their "flock". You are in religious bondage to false teachings that are not in agreement with the New Testament!


The True Church is not any organized religion; it is comprised of the Spiritual body of Believers, worldwide, who have repented from the love of this world and placed their faith and trust in no one or nothing else but Christ as sole Mediator, High Priest, Advocate, and Saviour of mankind.

It is the indwelling Holy Spirit of God that witnesses with our spirit that we are the Children of God by faith in Christ alone and no one or nothing else. It is the Holy Spirit of God who is our Helper, Teacher and Comforter.

The RCC is teaching salvation via another "gospel" and another "Jesus" and yet another "Mary" that is not Biblically in agreement with the New Testament Gospel Message. The RCC has corrupted the Truth of God's Plan of Salvation and created its own rules.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## ItalianScallion

Zguy28 said:


> Not to mention that in the gospels themselves, it is recorded that Jesus agreed with the Jews that Scripture was infallible when He said "and Scripture cannot be broken."(John 10:35)


 


libby said:


> The Scriptures discussed in the NT are in reference to the OT Scriptures.  Anything from Rev. concerns only what was said to John, the writer of Rev., which was all after the death of the rest of the Apostles.  There is no command that they record before they died.
> Find me where Jesus told His Apostles to put the deposit of faith into book form.  He didn't, end of story.  He built a church; an authoritative church.


Then why did the Apostles & others write the Scriptures if there was no command to?   Geezzz Libby! If ALL Scripture is God breathed, then anything in it is from Him. Do you think these men could remember everything in the minute detail that they did? Where would we be today without the divinely inspired, written Scriptures? 
If the "authoritative church" was listening to God, there wouldn't be all those differences and they would agree with what's written...


libby said:


> No one here claims the Scriptures are in error.  Only the interpretations thereof, which is why we need the authority of the church.
> I just don't get how it's not abundantly clear that myriad interpretations is the result of SS.


Oh yes YOU do. YOU claim the Scriptures are NOT saying what they DO say. I (we) point them out, and you deny them. The "deeper/secret" things of the Bible are spiritually understood. God will not reveal them to scoffers so they will say things that distort them because they cannot understand them. Remember what your first pope said:

2 Peter 3:16 "...just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, *to their own destruction.*"
Peter wrote; Paul wrote; John wrote, etc. WHY? The Holy Spirit LED them to, as pope Peter said He did (2 Peter 1:21)

SS HAS to be done in context. That's the main problem with Scripture interpretations overall. Verses taken out of context can make the Bible say all kinds of wacky things. In context, it becomes a very integrated "sharp" set of teachings.


----------



## libby

ItalianScallion said:


> Then why did the Apostles & others write the Scriptures if there was no command to?   Geezzz Libby! If ALL Scripture is God breathed, then anything in it is from Him. Do you think these men could remember everything in the minute detail that they did? Where would we be today without the divinely inspired, written Scriptures?
> If the "authoritative church" was listening to God, there wouldn't be all those differences and they would agree with what's written...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why, then, can that divine inspiration be true for an office.  And none of your claims explain that you do not have original copies.  Even if the original were divinely inspired, you are trusting so many translators and publishers etc. throughout the years that there is no surety anymore.
> 
> Oh yes YOU do. YOU claim the Scriptures are NOT saying what they DO say. I (we) point them out, and you deny them. The "deeper/secret" things of the Bible are spiritually understood. God will not reveal them to scoffers so they will say things that distort them because they cannot understand them. Remember what your first pope said:
> 
> 2 Peter 3:16 "...just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, *to their own destruction.*"
> Peter wrote; Paul wrote; John wrote, etc. WHY? The Holy Spirit LED them to, as pope Peter said He did (2 Peter 1:21)
> 
> SS HAS to be done in context. That's the main problem with Scripture interpretations overall. Verses taken out of context can make the Bible say all kinds of wacky things. In context, it becomes a very integrated "sharp" set of teachings.
Click to expand...


You all think you have the lock on reading in context.  We (Catholics) believe we are reading in context.  So...we have a problem that only authority solves.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> You all think you have the lock on reading in context.  We (Catholics) believe we are reading in context.  So...we have a problem that only authority solves.



Agreed but the Truth is that *God's Word*, not man's, is the Ultimate Authority.



> John, Chapter 17, verses:
> 1: These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
> 2: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
> 3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
> 4: I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
> 5: And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
> 6: I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
> 7: Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
> 8: For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
> 9: I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
> 10: And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
> 11: And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
> 12: While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
> 13: And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
> 14: I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
> 15: I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
> 16: They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
> 17: *Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth*.
> 18: As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
> 19: And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
> 20: Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
> 21: That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
> 22: And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
> 23: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
> 24: Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
> 25: O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
> 26: And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.





*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll, you are confusing sacraments and disciplines.



baydoll said:


> So what happens if you deliberately miss mass on Sunday or 'holy day of obligation', Radiant?



You miss Mass.



baydoll said:


> What happens if you challenge the Pope's authority,



Then you debate, ponder, and pray. If it is found that one cannot submit to the authority of the Pope (or more accurately Magisterium), then one de-facto becomes Protestant. They can then join you in your banshee squealing against the Church that Christ founded. 



baydoll said:


> or if deliberately eat meat during times it is forbidden (if your Church hasn't changed this rule already..),



Then you feel guilty for not making a good spiritual effort. Enjoy your meat this Wednesday! 



baydoll said:


> or if you refuse to fast the required length of time before taking communion?



Then you've not properly and spiritually prepared yourself to receive Christ in the Eucharist.



baydoll said:


> Where will you end up if you practice birth control, or get divorced and remarried?



Then you end up ashamed? 

I know you want me to say that the Church teaches someone will go to hell for these things, but it doesn't. The only thing the Church teaches a person will go to hell for is perserverance in their sins without contrition, ie dying without the state of sanctifying grace. Btw, sacraments are a tool to remain in sanctifying grace. Here is a quote from The Catechism of the Catholic Church (not a question/answer book from non-Magisterium), emphasis mine:

_1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. *If* it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. *However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.*_



baydoll said:


> Never mind there is not a shred of evidence in the Scripture that Jesus instituted these Roman Catholic Church's seven sacraments nor state that we need to follow them in order to be saved.



Are you SURE about that baydoll? You had best re-read that KJV of yours.



baydoll said:


> Again, Jesus says there will be division, Radiant. True Christians who follow Christ may be divisive because Jesus came to divide believers from the non believers, the true church from the false (the RCC) even dividing among family members (Matthew 10:34-38). And it is not my job to win souls Hon, that's the Holy Spirit's job. My job is to speak out in defense of God's truth and expose the lies of the Counterfeit.



Well by all means, continue in the vein you have been and be proud of yourself for it, for most assuredly you are righteous.



baydoll said:


> Oh good ! So we don't need to follow the Roman Catholic Church or what the Popes tell us to get into Heaven! Whew! I'm glad you cleared that up for us Radiant!



Due to sin, everyone's salvation is precarious so it would be wise to follow what the Pope (again more accurately Magisterium) states Ex-Cathedra.



baydoll said:


> *So if they're not 'binding', why have them in the first place?* Isn't your Church supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit Whom is Truth? If these things are not binding, wouldn't these pronoucements and teachings be misleading? Wouldn't that in itself not be very truthful?



Because pastoral letters are just that, pastoral. And no, that wouldn't mean they are misleading.



baydoll said:


> Actually I was married to a Catholic for 25 years and the majority if not all of my friends throughout my life have been Catholic, Radiant. The majority of my friends now are all ex-Catholics. And anyway, one does not have to be Catholic in order to know what your Church teaches and believes, dear.



So you only hang out with ex-Catholics these days, interesting. You have desperate need to study up on what the Church does teach. After all, one should know what one is bashing before one bashes it lest one look like a fool.



baydoll said:


> As for erroneously, what teachings would these be?



We've been telling you all along as you go on your rampages. I'm not going to spoon feed you by reiterating everything that's been said in this extraordinarily long thread. Take the chip off of your shoulder and re-read it for comprehension.



baydoll said:


> Okay...so how does your Church interprete the above verse, Radiant? I'd like to see an official interpretation of 2 Cor 5:8.



I'm glad to see you view it as official. That's a big start! 

Taken from the NAB footnotes on 2Cor 5:6-9 6 _Tension between present and future is expressed by another spatial image, the metaphor of the country and its citizens. At present we are like citizens in exile or far away from home. The Lord is the distant homeland, believed in but unseen. _

You see, the verse is fairly clear. There's no need for you to add meaning to it that isn't there. :ahem: 



baydoll said:


> And where does it say in Scripture that she was the 'perfect disciple of Christ'? I don't recall you answering that one.



You do know what disciple means, don't you? In answer to your question, when she willingly participated in God's plan of salvation, when she lived a life intimate with Christ as His mother, when Jesus followed her cue at Cana, when she was good enough for Jesus to say to John "Behold your mother". I could go on, but that should suffice. It doesn't have to explicity state "Mary was the perfect disciple of Christ" for it to be true. You know, kind of like how TRINITY isn't explicitly stated in scripture but yet you believe it. 



baydoll said:


> So in other words, you have no clue. You just blindly accept anything and everything they tell you. Check your brain at the door, you will be indoctrinated/taught/trained well, grasshoppa.
> 
> This is right out of the Classic Cult 101 Rule Book, Radiant.



I'm obviously not checking my brain at the door while you try to indoctrinate me, now am I? Go back and re-read how I became Catholic. 

Btw, I did a Google search for Classic Cult 101 Rule Book and didn't find it. 



baydoll said:


> Just because your Church claims this doesn't make it true, Radiant. Oh duh on me! I keep forgetting one is never, ever allowed to question the Great and Powerful RCC.
> 
> 
> Actually I've read your posts Radiant and the only response you've given me in regards to those questions is your extremely old and boring and lame and tired "Because it's history is traced back to Christ Himself. "Upon this rock...the gates of hell shall not prevail" typical and classic non-answer cult response.
> 
> Big deal. All 'Christian' cults say the exact same things, Dear.



Your snide cult comments aside, history is what it is and has value. I'm sorry if you choose to ignore it.



baydoll said:


> And Who is Paul imitating? Mary or Christ?



You can't be serious. Re-read for comprehension.

I would kindly ask you not to call me "hon", "dear" or "grasshoppa" in the future, for I am not your hon, your dear, or a "grasshoppa". Thank you.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> The only thing that the RCC has done is to establish a uniform indoctrination that is incumbent upon its parishioners to abide by!  Claiming that it is the "true church that Christ built" is again only according to the Vatican control over you and others who are not allowed to question its authority.  The Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Muslims, etc. all claim the same in order to keep tight control over their "flock". You are in religious bondage to false teachings that are not in agreement with the New Testament!
> 
> 
> The True Church is not any organized religion; it is comprised of the Spiritual body of Believers, worldwide, who have repented from the love of this world and placed their faith and trust in no one or nothing else but Christ as sole Mediator, High Priest, Advocate, and Saviour of mankind.
> 
> It is the indwelling Holy Spirit of God that witnesses with our spirit that we are the Children of God by faith in Christ alone and no one or nothing else. It is the Holy Spirit of God who is our Helper, Teacher and Comforter.
> 
> The RCC is teaching salvation via another "gospel" and another "Jesus" and yet another "Mary" that is not Biblically in agreement with the New Testament Gospel Message. The RCC has corrupted the Truth of God's Plan of Salvation and created its own rules.
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



Blustering pontification Batman! 

Kindly address the issues at hand that I presented to you as well as my questions (which I will post again for you).



Radiant1 said:


> Yep. Am I going to go to hell?





Radiant1 said:


> I don't see anything in that passage about "True Believers". Nevertheless, is it safe to assume that you think a "True  Believer" someone who only believes as you do?


----------



## Zguy28

libby said:


> No one here claims the Scriptures are in error.


Really?

Honestly Libby, you would think so by reading your posts. You see, in order to attack Sola Scriptura, the Roman Catholic HAS to emasculate the authority of the Scriptures.

You say that the Roman Church is a bulwark of truth and that it is the true church because the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. That comes from the Scriptures. You derive your claim to authority from the Scriptures yet claim that Tradition is equal to them. You root your authority on the same thing we do. 

Let me tell you a parable. 

There was once a king who left for a far away place. In his place, he left a steward in charge until he returned. Then a noble of the land came to the court and secretly locked the steward away in a cellar but told the people they were co-stewards until after a period of time the people forgot about the real steward. Then the noble claimed that the king had granted him equal and only authority to not only interpret his rulings, but also to make new ones. Then one day the subjects of the kingdom rose up under their burdensome yoke and rescued the steward and set him free. Under the stewards guidance they dealt the noble a mighty blow and sent word to the king of what had happened. When the king returned he said "you wretched servant, I left my steward to lead the people in my ways but you locked him up and instead have led them to ruin!" And the king cut the noble to pieces in full view of all of his subjects.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Blustering pontification Batman!
> 
> Kindly address the issues at hand that I presented to you as well as my questions (which I will post again for you).





			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Yep. Am I going to go to hell?



Put it this way Radiant1; *The Choice Is Yours! *Trusting in the Wrong “Jesus” as many pseudo-Christian cults do sure won’t get them into Heaven!  The RCC is teaching salvation via the wrong Jesus! The Bible does not ever mention that we are to direct our prayers, devotions and petitions to Mary and the “saints” as the RCC teaches. We are to direct our faith and prayers to Christ alone. If you are trusting in the wrong Jesus for Salvation then the Bible declares that Jesus Christ will one day proclaim that He did not know you! (Matthew 7:21-23)  Do you really know Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour? Does Jesus know you?  


As The New Testament Jesus proclaims: He Is The Way The Truth and The Life (John 14:6)  All Judgment has been given to Him: (John 5:22-27)  There is no mention that Mary and the “saints” are going to play any type of role in Heaven alongside Jesus as mediators and advocates in helping souls get in Heaven.



			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> I don't see anything in that passage about "True Believers". Nevertheless, is it safe to assume that you think a "True Believer" someone who only believes as you do?



A true believer is someone who believes as Jesus asks: Repent and Trust in Him alone for Forgiveness and Salvation through the power of His Atoning Blood alone.  Calling upon Mary and the saints for intercession, and Mediation for your soul is in vain and is a misguided teaching that has been added by the RCC. Are you really willing to entrust the RCC with the fate of your soul for eternity rather than going directly to The New Testament Jesus for the assurance of your Salvation?



> Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)
> 
> For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5)



The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.



> For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
> 
> But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
> As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)



The written words of the Holy Bible contain all the essential truths that brings a person to the Salvation Grace that God offers through the Atoning Blood of Christ and there is no mention that Mary would ever join Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," Benefactress," co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," etc.

Jesus is the resurrected Saviour of mankind; There Is Proof of that. 
There is no Biblical proof that Mary resurrected and was assumed up to Heaven. *No Proof - No Truth! *

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Radiant1

Why are you afraid to just come out and say it? I guess I should have had you mark *YES *or *NO*. 



Starman3000m said:


>



That would be a yes.



Starman3000m said:


>



That would be another yes.

You believe I'm going to hell because I don't believe as you do, Starman, who are your own interpreter of scripture even though others with the same Holy Spirit disagree. You believe I'm going to hell because I am a Catholic.

Heh.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Agreed but the Truth is that *God's Word*, not man's, is the Ultimate Authority.



God's Word interpreted by whom? I don't know about anyone else, but I sure am getting dizzy from the circular Sola Scriptura ill-logic. 

Starman, face it. There's just no way around it.


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> God's Word interpreted by whom? I don't know about anyone else, but I sure am getting dizzy from the circular Sola Scriptura ill-logic.
> 
> Starman, face it. There's just no way around it.


What authority does the RCC base it's authority as sole interpreter on?


----------



## tiger78

Radiant1 said:


> God's Word interpreted by whom? I don't know about anyone else, but I sure am getting dizzy from the circular Sola Scriptura ill-logic.
> 
> Starman, face it. There's just no way around it.



I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  Why?  Because we are told this in the scriptures. 

The Psalmist wrote "thy word have I hid in my heart that I may not sin against thee."
Jesus stood up to Satan's temptations by quoting scripture.  With each temptation he said, "It is written...." 
Part of the Full Armor of God is the sword of the spirit which is the word of God.

There are many places in the Bible that God warns us not to add to or take away from His Word.  I take God's warning seriously.

Until all believe the truth that the Bible is the inspired word of God, how can there be any further discussion..?


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> You all think you have the lock on reading in context.  We (Catholics) believe we are reading in context.


But you're not Libby. If you were, the meanings you get from it would be the same as the ones we get. Since we'll ALL stand before Jesus one day (and not the RCC hierarchy), don't you think it's better to take His word over theirs? 


Zguy28 said:


> Really? Honestly Libby, you would think so by reading your posts. You see, in order to attack Sola Scriptura, the Roman Catholic HAS to emasculate the authority of the Scriptures.


Which they do very secretly. It's done like this: As a young Catholic boy I was NEVER told to go home and read my Bible; Nor was I told to read it at school because there wasn't one there. I never knew why until after I got saved. 

What you say is exactly true Zguy. I think many people would leave the RCC if they read the Bible honestly and objectively. Once I compared what I was taught to what the Bible taught, I adjusted my thinking according to the Bible. I had to, because I knew I had been taught (some things) wrong. 


Zguy28 said:


> What authority does the RCC base it's authority as sole interpreter on?


They have large meetings where much of their doctrine is established by the church's leadership. The Council of Trent was one of the biggest. (And also the popes magic chair that makes him into an infallible god). I mean, come on; I'm not being silly here. It is what it is...


----------



## baydoll

ItalianScallion said:


> There are soo many more but these are good quotes Baydoll! Libby...you're digging yourself a bigger hole...Please stop!
> 
> Jesus read from scrolls with the Scriptures written on it. Not that He had to, but why do you think He did this? (The oral tradition had changed over the years. The written word was more dependable and He wanted the people to do the same thing He was doing).
> 
> Luke 4:16 "...and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written..."
> 
> Psalm 40:7, Hebrews 10:7: "Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, my God."
> 
> Ezekiel 2 & 3: "And you Son of Man...Do not be afraid of what they say or be terrified by them, though they are a rebellious people. You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious. Then I looked, and I saw a hand stretched out to me. In it was a scroll which he unrolled before me. On both sides of it were written words of lament and mourning and woe..."
> 
> 1 Timothy 4:13: "Until I come, *devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture,* to preaching and to teaching..."
> You can't read it unless it is written down...



And a hearty amen to that!


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> What authority does the RCC base it's authority as sole interpreter on?



Jesus Christ. 

You want me to say that we can only know this through scripture, but that isn't the case. The giving of the keys to the kingdom to Peter (and it's subsequent duties) happened before it was ever written down. Common sense (and scripture itself no less) dictates that there was more that occurred in the life of Jesus and the Apostles than was written. In fact, we know that a body of believers existed before anything was written down. In addition, we can ask who decided what was written will be put into a book as the inspired Word of God? 

You wouldn't even have the bible if not for the Catholic Church. In that sense, there is no salvation outside of the Church, for if it be through the Church that others heard the Word of God or through scripture, the source used by God remains the same. 



tiger78 said:


> I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  Why?  Because we are told this in the scriptures.
> 
> The Psalmist wrote "thy word have I hid in my heart that I may not sin against thee."
> Jesus stood up to Satan's temptations by quoting scripture.  With each temptation he said, "It is written...."
> Part of the Full Armor of God is the sword of the spirit which is the word of God.
> 
> There are many places in the Bible that God warns us not to add to or take away from His Word.  I take God's warning seriously.
> 
> Until all believe the truth that the Bible is the inspired word of God, how can there be any further discussion..?



Catholics believe the bible is the inspired Word of God as well, but there are various interpretations of God's Word via Christians; hence, the discussion. If we all understood it the same then I certainly would be happy, but we don't. Interpretation and authority is an issue those of the Sola Scriptura persuasion just can't get around. :shrug:


----------



## Zguy28

It should be noted also, that Sola Scriptura as envisioned by the Reformers was not "every man interprets the scripture for himself and their is no church authority." Rather, they did put much weight behind tradition and ecclesiastic authority, but not equal to Scripture. 

I don't think many realize that.


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> It should be noted also, that Sola Scriptura as envisioned by the Reformers was not "every man interprets the scripture for himself and their is no church authority." Rather, they did put much weight behind tradition and ecclesiastic authority, but not equal to Scripture.
> 
> I don't think many realize that.



If authority was not equal to scripture and one's personal interpretation of scripture wins out, then what was the point? The Sola Scriptura problem remains the same. :shrug:


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> Jesus Christ.
> 
> You want me to say that we can only know this through scripture, but that isn't the case. The giving of the keys to the kingdom to Peter (and it's subsequent duties) happened before it was ever written down. Common sense (and scripture itself no less) dictates that there was more that occurred in the life of Jesus and the Apostles than was written. In fact, we know that a body of believers existed before anything was written down. In addition, we can ask who decided what was written will be put into a book as the inspired Word of God?


Why yes, we can ask that. And you are using circular logic. Can you see that?

If you say "Peter was given the keys to the kingdom" and I say "How do you know this?" What is your answer?





> You wouldn't even have the bible if not for the Catholic Church. In that sense, there is no salvation outside of the Church, for if it be through the Church that others heard the Word of God or through scripture, the source used by God remains the same.


I agree, since catholic means "universal." Why did you not say Roman Catholic?



> Catholics believe the bible is the inspired Word of God as well, but there are various interpretations of God's Word via Christians; hence, the discussion. If we all understood it the same then I certainly would be happy, but we don't. Interpretation and authority is an issue those of the Sola Scriptura persuasion just can't get around. :shrug:


Prove to me, *without using Scripture*, that Rome is the authority and has been since the beginning of the Christian church.


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> If authority was not equal to scripture and one's personal interpretation of scripture wins out, then what was the point? The Sola Scriptura problem remains the same. :shrug:


Remember, they believed the church derived it's authority from the Scriptures just like you do. However, "you will know them by their fruit." Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door because he saw that the Roman church did not bear good fruit, but rather rotten, and needed reformation.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> The Scriptures discussed in the NT are in reference to the OT Scriptures.  Anything from Rev. concerns only what was said to John, the writer of Rev., which was all after the death of the rest of the Apostles.  There is no command that they record before they died.
> Find me where Jesus told His Apostles to put the deposit of faith into book form.  He didn't, end of story.  .



Not so fast libby:

Luke says:  "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may have certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

And at the end of John: "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." John 21:25

It is a consistent theme of Scripture that God moved men by the Holy Spirt to write the truth about Jesus Christ. 



> All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, 2 Tim 3:16





> First of all, you should know this: no prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, moved by the Holy Spirit, men spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:20-21





> libby: He built a church; an authoritative church



So what kind of evidence do you have that your Church is indeed that authority, libby?

Actually, the Apostle Paul said the church was to be the pillar and foundation of truth. There is a mountain of difference between recognizing and confessing Christ's church as the pillar and support of truth and confessing the Church to be the final arbiter of that truth, libby.


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> Why yes, we can ask that. And you are using circular logic. Can you see that?
> 
> If you say "Peter was given the keys to the kingdom" and I say "How do you know this?" What is your answer?



Because BOTH Tradition AND Scripture say as much. Both/and, not either/or, Zguy.



Zguy28 said:


> I agree, since catholic means "universal." Why did you not say Roman Catholic?



How do you suppose the "Roman" *CATHOLIC *Church got it's name? You're being ridiculously silly by asking this question.


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> Prove to me, *without using Scripture*, that Rome is the authority and has been since the beginning of the Christian church.



We know rationally that a church was founded by Christ. History tell us the rest. The Catholic Church is the only one that can trace it's history back to 33 AD, and there is no other church that can claims otherwise.

_1 St. Peter, d. ca. 64. 
2 St. Linus, 67-76.  
3 St. Anacletus (Cletus), 76-88. 
4 St. Clement I, 88-97. 
5 St. Evaristus, 97-105.  
6 St. Alexander I, 105-115. 
7 St. Sixtus I, 115-125. 
8 St. Telesphoros, 125-136. 
9 St. Hyginus, 136-140. 
10 St. Pius I, 140-155.  
11 St. Anicetus, 155-166. 
12 St. Soter, 166-175. 
13 St. Eleutherius, 175-189. 
14 St. Victor I, 189-198. 
15 St. Zephrynus, 199-217.  
16 St. Callistus I, 217-222.  
17 St. Urban I, 222-230.  
18 St. Pontian, 230-235. 
19 St. Anterus, 235-236. 
20 St. Fabian, 236-250. 
21 St. Cornelius, 251-253. 
22 St. Lucius I, 253-254. 
23 St. Stephen I, 254-257. 
24 St. Sixtus II, 257-258. 
25 St. Dionysius, 260-268. 
26 St. Felix I, 269-274. 
27 St. Eutychian, 274-283.  
28 St. Caius, 283-296.   
29 St. Marcellinus, 296-304. 
30 St. Marcellus, 308-309. 
31 St. Eusebius, 309-310.  
32 St. Melchiades, 311-314.  
33 St. Sylvester I, 314-335. 
34 St. Mark, 336. 
35 St. Julius I, 337-352. 
36 Liberius, 352-366. 
37 St. Damascus, 366-384. 
38 St. Siricius, 384-399. 
39 St. Anastasius, 399-401.  
40 St. Innocent I, 401-417.  
41 St. Zosimus, 417-418.  
42 St. Boniface I, 418-422. 
43 St. Celestine I, 422-432. 
44 St. Sixtus III, 432-440. 
45 St. Leo I (the Great), 440-461. 
46 St. Hilary, 461-468.  
47 St. Simplicius, 468-483. 
48 St. Felix III. 483-492.  
49 St. Gelasius, 492-496. 
50 Anastasius II, 496-498. 
51 St. Symmachus, 498-515.  
52 St. Hormisdas, 514-523.  
53 St. John I, 523-526. 
54 St. Felix IV, 526-530. 
55 Boniface II, 530-532.  
56 John II, 533-535. 
57 Agapitus, 535-536. 
58 St. Silverius, 536-537. 
59 Vigilius, 537-555.  
60 Pelagius I, 556-561 
61 John III, 561-574. 
62 Benedict I, 575-579.  
63 Pelagius II, 579-590. 
64 St. Gregory I (the Great), 590-604. 
65 Sabinian, 604-606.  
66 Boniface III, 607. 
67 Boniface IV, 608-615. 
68 St. Deusdedit, 615-618. 
69 Boniface IV, 619-625. 
70 Honorius, 625-638. 
71 Severinus, 640. 
72 John IV, 640-642.  
73 Theodore I, 642-649. 
74 St. Martin I, 649-655. 
75 St. Eugene I, 654-657. 
76 St. Vitalian, 657-672. 
77 Adeodatus II, 672-676.  
78 Donus, 676-678. 
79 St. Agatho, 678-681. 
80 St. Leo II, 682-683. 
81 St. Benedict II, 684-685.  
82 John V, 685-686. 
83 Conon, 686-687.  
84 St. Sergius, 687-701. 
85 John VI, 701-705.  
86 John VII. 705-707.  
87 Sisinnius, 708. 
88 Constantine, 708-715. 
89 St. Gregory II, 715-731. 
90 St. Gregory III, 731-741. 
91 St. Zachary, 741-752. 
92 Stephen II, 752-757.  
93 St. Paul I, 757-767. 
94 Stephen III, 768-772.  
95 Adrian I, 772-795. 
96 St. Leo III, 795-816. 
97 Stephen IV, 816-817. 
98 St. Paschal I, 817-824. 
99 Eugene II, 824-827.  
100 Valentine, 827. 
101 Gregory IV, 827-844. 
102 Sergius II, 844-847. 
103 St. Leo IV, 847-855. 
104 Benedict III, 855-858. 
105 St. Nicholas I, 858-867. 
106 Adrian II, 867-872. 
107 John VIII. 872-882. 
108 Marinus I, 882-884. 
109 Adrian III, 884-885. 
110 Stephen V, 885-891. 
111 Formosus, 891-896. 
112 Boniface, 896. 
113 Stephen VI, 896-897. 
114 Romanus, 897. 
115 Theodore II, 897. 
116 John IX, 898-900. 
117 Benedict IV, 900-903. 
118 Leo V, 903. 
119 Sergius, 904-911. 
120 Anastasius, 911-913. 
121 Lando, 913-914. 
122 John X, 914-928.  
123 Leo VI, 928. 
124 Stephen VII, 928-931. 
125 John XI, 931-935. 
126 Leo VII, 936-939. 
127 Stephen VIII, 939-942. 
128 Marinus II, 942-946. 
129 Agapitus, 946-955.  
130 John XII, 955-964. 
131 Leo VIII, 963-965. 
132 Benedict V, 964-966. 
133 John XIII, 966-972. 
134 Benedict VI, 973-974. 
135 Benedict VII, 974-983. 
136 John XIV, 983-984. 
137 John XV, 985-996. 
138 Gregory V, 972-999. 
139 Sylvester II, 999-1003. 
140 John XVII, 1003.  
141 John XVIII, 1004-1009. 
142 Sergius IV, 1009-1012. 
143 Benedict VIII, 1012-1024. 
144 John XIX, 1024-1032. 
145 Benedict IX, 1032-1044. 
146 Sylvester III, 1045.  
147 Gregory VI, 1045-1046. 
148 Clement, 1046-1047.  
149 Damasus, 1048. 
150 St. Leo IX, 1049-1054. 
151 Victor II, 1055-1057. 
152 Stephen IX, 1057-1058. 
153 Nicholas, 1058-1061.  
154 Alexander II, 1061-1073. 
155 St. Gregory VII, 1072-1085. 
156 Blessed Victor III, 1086-1087.  
157 Blessed Urban II, 1088-1099. 
158 Paschal II, 1099-1118.  
159 Gelasius II, 1118-1119. 
160 Callistus, 1119-1124. 
161 Honorius II, 1124-1130. 
162 Innocent II, 1130-1143. 
163 Celestine II, 1143-1144.  
164 Lucius II, 1144-1145. 
165 Blessed Eugene II, 1145-1153. 
166 Anastasius, 1153-1154. 
167 Adrian IV, 1154-1159. 
168 Alexander III, 1159-1181. 
169 Lucius III, 1181-1185. 
170 Urban III, 1185-1187. 
171 Gregory VIII, 1187. 
172 Clement III, 1187-1191. 
173 Celestine III, 1191-1198. 
174 Innocent III, 1198-1216. 
176 Gregory IX, 1227-1241. 
177 Celestine IV, 1241. 
178 Innocent IV, 1243-1254. 
179 Alexander IV, 1254-1261. 
180 Urban IV, 1261-1264.
181 Clement IV, 1265-1268. 
182 Blessed Gregory X, 1272-1276. 
183 Blessed Innocent V, 1276. 
184 Adrian V, 1276. 
185 John XXI, 1276-1277. 
186 Nicholas, 1277-1280. 
187 Martin IV, 1281-1285.  
188 Honorius IV, 1285-1287.  
189 Nicholas IV, 1288-1292. 
190 St. Celestine V, 1294. 
191 Boniface VIII, 1294-1303.  
192 Blessed Benedict XI, 1303-1304.  
193 Clement V, 1305-1314. 
194 John XXII, 1316-1334.  
195 Benedict XII, 1335-1342. 
196 Clement VI, 1342-1352. 
197 Innocent VI, 1352-1362. 
198 Blessed Urban V, 1362-1370. 
199 Gregory XI, 1371-1378. 
200 Urban VI, 1378-1389. 
201 Boniface IX, 1389-1404. 
202 Innocent VII, 1404-1406. 
203 Gregory XII, 1406-1415.  
204 Martin V, 1417-1431. 
205 Eugene IV, 1431-1447. 
206 Nicholas V, 1447-1455. 
207 Callistus III, 1455-1458. 
208 Pius II, 1458-1464. 
209 Paul II, 1464-1471. 
210 Sixtus IV, 1471-1484. 
211 Innocent VIII, 1484-1492. 
212 Alexander VI, 1492-1503. 
213 Pius III, 1503. 
214 Julius II, 1503-1513. 
215 Leo X, 1513-1521. 
216 Adrian VI, 1522-1523. 
217 Clement VII, 1523-1534. 
218 Paul III, 1534-1549.  
219 Julius III, 1550-1555. 
220 Marcellus II, 1555. 
221 Paul IV, 1555-1559. 
222 Pius V, 1559-1565. 
223 St. Pius V, 1566-1572. 
224 Gregory XIII, 1572-1585. 
225 Sixtus V, 1585-1590. 
226 Urban VII, 1590.  
227 Gregory XIV, 1590-1591.  
228 Innocent IX, 1591.  
229 Clement VIII, 1592-1605. 
230 Leo XI, 1605. 
231 Paul V, 1605-1621. 
232 Gregory XV, 1621-1623. 
233 Urban VIII, 1623-1644. 
234 Innocent X, 1644-1655.  
235 Alexander VII, 1655-1667. 
236 Clement IX, 1667-1669. 
237 Clement X, 1670-1676. 
238 Blessed Innocent XI, 1676-1689.
239 Alexander VIII, 1689-1691.  
240 Innocent XII, 1691-1700. 
241 Clement XI, 1700-1721. 
242 Innocent XIII, 1721-1724.  
243 Benedict XIII, 1724-1730. 
244 Clement XII, 1730-1740. 
245 Benedict XIV, 1740-1758. 
246 Clement XIII, 1758-1769 
247 Clement XIV, 1769-1774.  
248 Pius VI, 1775-1799. 
249 Pius VII, 1800-1823.
250 Leo XII, 1823-1829. 
251 Pius VIII, 1829-1830. 
252 Gregory XVI, 1831-1846. 
253 Pius IX, 1846-1878. 
254 Leo XIII, 1878-1903. 
255 St. Pius X, 1903-1914. 
256 Benedict XV, 1914-1922. 
257 Pius XI, 1922-1939. 
258 Pius XII, 1939-1958. 
259 John XXIII, 1958-1963. 
260 Paul VI, 1963-1978. 
261 John Paul I, 1978. 
262 John Paul II, 1978-2005. 
263 Benedict XVI, 2005-current._


----------



## Radiant1

In addition to that, we have the Church Fathers on authority or examples of that authority. I'll keep it to 1st and 2nd centuries only.

_Clement
Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]). _

_Hermas
Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]). _

_Ignatius of Antioch
Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]). _

_You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force. (ibid., 3:1). _

_Dionysius of Corinth
For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]). _

_Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement (ibid., 4:23:11). _

_Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). _

_Eusebius of Caesarea
A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom (Church History 5:23:1–24:11). 

Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches (ibid., 24:18). _


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> No one here claims the Scriptures are in error.  Only the interpretations thereof, which is why we need the authority of the church.
> I just don't get how it's not abundantly clear that myriad interpretations is the result of SS.



And how many Scripture verses has your Church officially interpreted?


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> We know rationally that a church was founded by Christ. History tell us the rest. The Catholic Church is the only one that can trace it's history back to 33 AD, and there is no other church that can claims otherwise.
> 
> _1 St. Peter, d. ca. 64. yada yada yada
> _



And where did you get that little number from Radiant? 


Actually Iraeneus (one of your beloved ECFs) says otherwise. Iraeneus does not identify Peter as the first Bishop of Rome. The first Bishop of Rome he does identify is Linus. If Peter had, in fact, been first Bishop of Rome, why did Iraeneus ignore him? 



> The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. . . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (St. Ingatius, Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis Chapter IV; Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.



Iraeneus then gives us the identity of the first twelve Bishops of Rome: 


1. Linus 
2. Anacletus 
3. Clement 
4. Evaristus 
5. Alexander 
6. Sixtus 
7. Ignatius (Telephorus) 
8. Huginus 
9. Pius 
10. Anicetus 
11. Sorer 
12. Eleutherius 

Do you see then name of Peter in this Father's list of Rome's bishops?

Here's another one:

From Hippolytus, Book XLIV; ON The Twelve Apostles Where Each OF Them Preached, And Where HE Met His End:




> 1. Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia, and Betania, and Italy, and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by Nero in Rome with his head downward, as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner.
> 
> 2. Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians . . .
> 
> The Same Hippolytus ON The Seventy Apostles.
> 
> 1. James the Lord's brother, bishop of Jerusalem.
> 
> 2. Cleopas, bishop of Jerusalem.
> 
> 3. Matthias, who supplied the vacant place in the number of the twelve apostles.
> 
> 4. Thaddeus, who conveyed the epistle to Augarus.
> 
> 5. Ananias, who baptized Paul, and was bishop of Damascus.
> 
> 6. Stephen, the first martyr.
> 
> 7. Philip, who baptized the eunuch.
> 
> 8. Prochorus, bishop of Nicomedia, who also was the first that departed, believing together with his daughters.
> 
> 9. Nicanor died when Stephen was martyred.
> 
> 10. Timon, bishop of Bostra.
> 
> 11. Parmenas, bishop of Soli.
> 
> 12. Nicolaus, bishop of Samaria.
> 
> 13. Barnabas, bishop of Milan.
> 
> 14. Mark the evangelist, bishop of Alexandria.
> 
> 15. Luke the evangelist.
> 
> These two belonged to the seventy disciples who were scattered by the offence of the word which Christ spoke, "Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me." But the one being induced to return to the Lord by Peter's instrumentality, and the other by Paul's, they were honoured to preach that Gospel on account of which they also suffered martyrdom, the one being burned, and the other being crucified on an olive tree.
> 
> 16. Silas, bishop of Corinth.
> 
> 17. Silvanus, bishop of Thessalonica.
> 
> 18. Crisces (Crescens), bishop of Carchedon in Gaul.
> 
> 19. Epaenetus, bishop of Carthage.
> 
> 20. Andronicus, bishop of Pannonia.
> 
> 21. Amplias, bishop of Odyssus.
> 
> 22. Urban, bishop of Macedonia.
> 
> 23. Stachys, bishop of Byzantium.
> 
> 24. Barnabas, bishop of Heraclea.
> 
> 25. Phygellus, bishop of Ephesus. He was of the party also of Simon.
> 
> 26. Hermogenes. He, too, was of the same mind with the former.
> 
> 27. Demas, who also became a priest of idols.
> 
> 28. Apelles, bishop of Smyrna.
> 
> 29. Aristobulus, bishop of Britain.
> 
> 30. Narcissus, bishop of Athens.
> 
> 31. Herodion, bishop of Tarsus.
> 
> 32. Agabus the prophet.
> 
> 33. Rufus, bishop of Thebes.
> 
> 34. Asyncritus, bishop of Hyrcania.
> 
> 35. Phlegon, bishop of Marathon.
> 
> 36. Hermes, bishop of Dalmatia.
> 
> 37. Patrobulus, bishop of Puteoli.
> 
> 38. Hermas, bishop of Philippi.
> 
> 39. Linus, bishop of Rome.
> 
> 40. Caius, bishop of Ephesus.
> 
> 41. Philologus, bishop of Sinope.



According to St. Hippolytus, who was first Bishop of Rome?

Do you see then name of Peter in this Father's list of Rome's bishops?

Hippolytus goes to some trouble to describe where Peter preached the Gospel - yet failed to mention either Rome, or Peter's supposedly being bishop of Rome. Why this oversight?

Here's even another one this time from St. Clement:



> "There is a letter in which this same Clement writing to James the Lord's brother, gives an account of the death of Peter, and says that he has left him as his successor, as ruler and teacher of the church; and further incorporates a whole scheme of ecclesiastical government. This I have not prefixed to the work, both because it is later in point of time, and because it has been previously translated and published by me. Nevertheless, there is a point which would perhaps seem inconsistent with facts were I to place the translation of it in this work, but which I do not consider to involve an impossibility. It is this. Linus and Cletus were Bishops of the city of Rome before Clement. How then, some men ask, can Clement in his, letter to James say that Peter passed over to him his position as a church-teacher. The explanation of this point, as I understand, is as follows. Linus and Cletus were, no doubt," Bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but this was in Peter's life-time; " (St. Clement, Addressed to Bishop Gaudentis, from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second series, Vol III. Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume III, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.



How could Linus be bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive?

If Linus was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, does that not mean that Linus, not even an Apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul - two living Apostles?

Now let's have a look at what a good Roman Catholic historian, Johan Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, who taught Church history for 47 years has to say about Rome's 'interpretation' of Matthew 16:18. 



> "Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18, John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess - Origin, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas - has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!" (The Pope and the Council, Boston: Roberts, 1869, P. 74)



How can the Roman Catholic Church claim the primacy of Peter when her own best historian denies it?

How do you resolve the contradiction between the teachings of the Fathers of the Church and the Roman Catholic Church itself?


(Thanks to the Roman Catholic Observer for the above.)


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> In addition to that, we have the Church Fathers on authority or examples of that authority. I'll keep it to 1st and 2nd centuries only.
> 
> _Clement
> Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]). _
> 
> _Hermas
> Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]). _
> 
> _Ignatius of Antioch
> Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]). _
> 
> _You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force. (ibid., 3:1). _
> 
> _Dionysius of Corinth
> For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]). _
> 
> _Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement (ibid., 4:23:11). _
> 
> _Irenaeus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> __Eusebius of Caesarea
> A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).
> 
> Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches (ibid., 24:18). _



And then we have these ECFs on authority and Scripture:

Jerome: 



> "As we accept those things that are written, so we reject those things that are not written (in Scripture)" (Adv. Helvid).
> "These things which they invent, as if by Apostolic tradition, without the authority of Scripture, the sword of God smites." (In Aggari Proph. Cap. I, II).



Chrysostom:



> "All things are plain and simple in the Holy Scriptures; all things necessary are evident." (2 Thessalonians, Homily III, Volume xi, 528)



Irenaeus:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel is come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." [Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 1, Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 3.1.1, P. 414] 

Cyril of Jerusalem:



> "This seal have thou ever on they mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on its heads, and if the Lord grat, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." [The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril, Lecture 4.17; A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford, Parker, 1845]



Gregory of Nyssa :



> "The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." [Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises "on the Soul and the Resurrection", P. 439. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume V.]


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> You all think you have the lock on reading in context.  We (Catholics) believe we are reading in context.  So...we have a problem that only authority solves.



And are you allowed to question this *authority* to find out it is whom it claims to be?  Why or why not?


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Why are you afraid to just come out and say it? I guess I should have had you mark *YES *or *NO*.
> 
> That would be a yes.
> 
> That would be another yes.
> 
> You believe I'm going to hell because I don't believe as you do, Starman, who are your own interpreter of scripture even though others with the same Holy Spirit disagree. You believe I'm going to hell because I am a Catholic.
> 
> Heh.



I have told you the Truth, Radiant1, yet there is pride and defiance in your questioning. 

You choose to believe papal authority over the Authority of Jesus Christ, the Son of The Living God. You choose to hedge your bet that the RCC is the church that Christ established.  However, one look at the way that the RCC has conducted itself from the days of the Inquisitions up through today will prove to anyone that Christ did not establish the RCC at all and that its teachings and leadership are much like those of the Pharisees; whitewashed on the outside and corrupt on the inside.

If you have chosen to place your faith in the RCC with its focus on papal authority, Marian theology and  purgatory and not on the Words of Jesus, the True Saviour of mankind, then, according to the Authority of what the Holy Bible teaches your soul will be partaking with those who have chosen to follow the spirit of antichrist.

I leave it up to you to decide your own fate as you alone will be held accountable to God.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## baydoll

> Zguy: Why yes, we can ask that. And you are using circular logic. Can you see that?
> 
> If you say "Peter was given the keys to the kingdom" and I say "How do you know this?" What is your answer?






> Radiant-Because BOTH Tradition AND Scripture say as much. Both/and, not either/or, Zguy.



And where in Scripture did Jesus actually give Peter those 'keys', Radiant?


----------



## baydoll

> Me- Never mind there is not a shred of evidence in the Scripture that Jesus instituted these Roman Catholic Church's seven sacraments nor state that we need to follow them in order to be saved.





> Radiant- Are you SURE about that baydoll? You had best re-read that KJV of yours.



Well by all means why don't you point it out to us, Radiant. : )


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> You miss Mass.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you debate, ponder, and pray. If it is found that one cannot submit to the authority of the Pope (or more accurately Magisterium), then one de-facto becomes Protestant. They can then join you in your banshee squealing against the Church that Christ founded.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you feel guilty for not making a good spiritual effort. Enjoy your meat this Wednesday!



And Jesus commanded us to observe Ash Wednesday when, Radiant?


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> Because pastoral letters are just that, pastoral. And no, that wouldn't mean they are misleading.



So the Pope's pronouncements are now just nothing more than 'pastoral letters'? That hole you're digging yourself in is getting pretty deep, Radiant.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> So you only hang out with ex-Catholics these days, interesting. You have desperate need to study up on what the Church does teach. After all, one should know what one is bashing before one bashes it lest one look like a fool.



No,  I have a desperate need to rescue lost Catholics out of the darkness of their church. : )


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> I'm glad to see you view it as official. That's a big start!
> 
> Taken from the NAB footnotes on 2Cor 5:6-9 6 _Tension between present and future is expressed by another spatial image, the metaphor of the country and its citizens. At present we are like citizens in exile or far away from home. The Lord is the distant homeland, believed in but unseen. _
> 
> You see, the verse is fairly clear. There's no need for you to add meaning to it that isn't there. :ahem:



That's not the official interpretation, Radiant. 

According to your Church, there are only 7 official interpretations of Scripture and that passage isn't on the list. ahem.


----------



## Starman3000m

*Mary Worship Rooted in Paganism*

*The “Immaculate Conception” Deception*

http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholic.immaculate.conception.deception.htm


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> You do know what disciple means, don't you? In answer to your question, when she willingly participated in God's plan of salvation, when she lived a life intimate with Christ as His mother, when Jesus followed her cue at Cana, when she was good enough for Jesus to say to John "Behold your mother". I could go on, but that should suffice. It doesn't have to explicity state "Mary was the perfect disciple of Christ" for it to be true. You know, kind of like how TRINITY isn't explicitly stated in scripture but yet you believe it.



The thing is, Radiant, the Trinity IS explicitly stated in Scripture, Mary being the perfect disciple of Christ is not. And no, Jesus saying 'Behold your mother' to John doesn't make her the 'perfect disciple'. And as for Jesus taking her cue at Cana, I guess you forgot that He rebuked her for this little cue of hers. 

And 'she willingly participated in God's plan of salvation', gee Radiant, it sounds like you believe that if it hadn't been for Mary, we would all be doomed.


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> And where did you get that little number from Radiant?
> 
> 
> Actually Iraeneus (one of your beloved ECFs) says otherwise. Iraeneus does not identify Peter as the first Bishop of Rome. The first Bishop of Rome he does identify is Linus. If Peter had, in fact, been first Bishop of Rome, why did Iraeneus ignore him?
> 
> 
> 
> Iraeneus then gives us the identity of the first twelve Bishops of Rome:
> 
> 
> 1. Linus
> 2. Anacletus
> 3. Clement
> 4. Evaristus
> 5. Alexander
> 6. Sixtus
> 7. Ignatius (Telephorus)
> 8. Huginus
> 9. Pius
> 10. Anicetus
> 11. Sorer
> 12. Eleutherius
> 
> Do you see then name of Peter in this Father's list of Rome's bishops?



Let's see what Ireneus does in fact say and take it all in it's context; Against Heresies Book 3, Paragraphs 2-3:

_Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles…_



baydoll said:


> Here's another one:
> 
> From Hippolytus, Book XLIV; ON The Twelve Apostles Where Each OF Them Preached, And Where HE Met His End:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to St. Hippolytus, who was first Bishop of Rome?
> 
> Do you see then name of Peter in this Father's list of Rome's bishops?
> 
> Hippolytus goes to some trouble to describe where Peter preached the Gospel - yet failed to mention either Rome, or Peter's supposedly being bishop of Rome. Why this oversight?



As you can see, Hippolytus agrees with Ireneus. Peter was martyred in ROME and Linus then became bishop. I don't care if you feel the need to grasp at straws on this, the reality remains the same. Linus succeeded Peter.



baydoll said:


> Here's even another one this time from St. Clement:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Linus be bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive?
> 
> If Linus was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, does that not mean that Linus, not even an Apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul - two living Apostles?



It means Peter appointed Linus as his successor, as was stated above.



baydoll said:


> Now let's have a look at what a good Roman Catholic historian, Johan Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, who taught Church history for 47 years has to say about Rome's 'interpretation' of Matthew 16:18.
> 
> 
> 
> How can the Roman Catholic Church claim the primacy of Peter when her own best historian denies it?



It's extraordinarily disingenguous of you to call Johan vonDollinger the Catholic's "own best historian", for surely you know that he was ex-communicated for his views. That aside, he is one historian, not the majority. I don't even see what your point was with this aside from being a snake. You will not prevail baydoll.



baydoll said:


> How do you resolve the contradiction between the teachings of the Fathers of the Church and the Roman Catholic Church itself?



I don't, as there are no contradictions to resolve.



baydoll said:


> And then we have these ECFs on authority and Scripture:
> 
> Jerome:
> 
> 
> 
> Chrysostom:
> 
> 
> 
> Irenaeus:
> 
> "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel is come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." [Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 1, Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 3.1.1, P. 414]
> 
> Cyril of Jerusalem:
> 
> 
> 
> Gregory of Nyssa :




Ok. And? 



baydoll said:


> And where in Scripture did Jesus actually give Peter those 'keys', Radiant?



That's already been answered twice in this or other threads. I'm not going to repeat it for someone who can't grasp it the first two times.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> You can't be serious. Re-read for comprehension.



Okay lets!

"Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1

“Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did.” 1 Jn. 2:6

So who did the Apostle Paul and John tell us we are to imitate? Jesus or Mary?


----------



## baydoll

> Me- And where in Scripture did Jesus actually give Peter those 'keys', Radiant?





> Radiant-That's already been answered twice in this or other threads. I'm not going to repeat it for someone who can't grasp it the first two times.



No it has not in this thread nor any of the others. Why? Because Jesus NEVER gave Peter those 'keys'. It is not in Scripture. 

I am out of time so I will answer the rest of your post later.


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> Remember, they believed the church derived it's authority from the Scriptures *just like you do.* However, "you will know them by their fruit." Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door because he saw that the Roman church did not bear good fruit, but rather rotten, and needed reformation.



No, not just like I do. Be careful in what you ascribe for you're wrong.

Luther was right that the Church needed reformation and denouncing any abuses that were occuring; however, he was not right in going as far as he did. His denouncements became so violent as to forget the good connected with the thing denounced. He then started making attacks on persons not actions. He then self-exalted himself by setting himself up as the standard of orthodoxy and removed himself from the very Church he originally sought to serve.

There was reformation that was done correctly. It's historically called the counter-reformation. Some of those who reformed the Church from within (unlike Luther), are now called saints by the Church; Pius V, Ignatius, Therese of Avila, John of the Cross, Vincent dePaul, Francis deSales, etc and so forth.

There's a difference between reform and rebellion. Luther ultimately rebelled.

With that having been said, if you believe that the fruits of the Catholic Church were so rotten as to have need to start a whole new entity, then you are saying the gates of hell prevailed against God's Church and are calling Jesus a liar. You need to be very careful where you are going with this.


----------



## Bavarian

I find comments from the Radient1 disturbing.  Missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation ARE MORTAL sins and must be confessed to a priest quickly before one dies and goes straight to Hell.  Using artificial birth control is a mortal sin.  Getting a divorce and attempting remarrage without an annulment causes one to be Excommunicated.

These politicans and others who are in favor of abortion have excommunicated themselves.

If one can not follow the discipline of The Church, they are no longer Catholic and should stop calling themselves Catholic, the cafeteria is closed(. All or nothing.

Especially here where the anti-Catholic satanic forces will bite on any weakness, we must be strong in The Faith!


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> And Jesus commanded us to observe Ash Wednesday when, Radiant?



He didn't have to for it to be good and profitable.



baydoll said:


> So the Pope's pronouncements are now just nothing more than 'pastoral letters'? That hole you're digging yourself in is getting pretty deep, Radiant.



Let me spell this out for you as simply as I can.

When. the. Pope. speaks. ex-cathedra. it. is. binding.

When. the. Pope. writes. a. pastoral letter. it. is. just. that,. a. pastoral. letter. and. not. binding.



baydoll said:


> That's not the official interpretation, Radiant.
> 
> According to your Church, there are only 7 official interpretations of Scripture and that passage isn't on the list. ahem.



It's the authoritative interpretation baydoll. 



baydoll said:


> The thing is, Radiant, the Trinity IS explicitly stated in Scripture, Mary being the perfect disciple of Christ is not. And no, Jesus saying 'Behold your mother' to John doesn't make her the 'perfect disciple'. And as for Jesus taking her cue at Cana, I guess you forgot that He rebuked her for this little cue of hers.
> 
> And 'she willingly participated in God's plan of salvation', gee Radiant, it sounds like you believe that if it hadn't been for Mary, we would all be doomed.



Why do you suppose would Jesus hand over his mother to John? Why do you suppose that Jesus did what Mary asked of him at Cana, even after fussing at her for it? Why do you suppose God chose Mary to begin with? What do you think would have happened had Mary not consented to God's plan? I don't really know the answer to that question, I just know that she did.

Trinity is NOT explicitly stated in scripture. You are desperate to even say as much. 



baydoll said:


> Okay lets!
> 
> "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1
> 
> “Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did.” 1 Jn. 2:6
> 
> So who did the Apostle Paul and John tell us we are to imitate? Jesus or Mary?



You could have quoted my response while you're at it, but that ok. Since you're apparently simple, I'll spell it out for you. Both Mary and Paul are of Christ. If Paul says to imitate him, then how much more so should we imitate Mary who has all the attributes I previously described? 

You claim we should not imitate Mary, but yet Paul says we should imitate him so it can't be contrary to the faith to imitate a disciple. Mary was closer to Jesus than Paul. I will imitate her and the manner in which she is Christ-like, and you cannot tell me or anyone it's not scriptural to do so. 

You are so desperate in your anti-Catholic propaganda that you actually delineate the very disciple of Christ that gave Him life, raised Him from a child, walked with Him in his ministry, and was at the cross at His death. That's just...ill. I've come to believe you are truly a sick woman.



baydoll said:


> No it has not in this thread nor any of the others. Why? Because Jesus NEVER gave Peter those 'keys'. It is not in Scripture.



What bible are you reading again, the KJV? 



baydoll said:


> I am out of time so I will answer the rest of your post later.



If you insist on the last word, sure. If not, don't bother. I really don't think I can respond to you anymore and remain charitable.


----------



## Radiant1

Bavarian said:


> I find comments from the Radient1 disturbing.  Missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation ARE MORTAL sins and must be confessed to a priest quickly before one dies and goes straight to Hell.  Using artificial birth control is a mortal sin.  Getting a divorce and attempting remarrage without an annulment causes one to be Excommunicated.
> 
> These politicans and others who are in favor of abortion have excommunicated themselves.
> 
> If one can not follow the discipline of The Church, they are no longer Catholic and should stop calling themselves Catholic, the cafeteria is closed(. All or nothing.
> 
> Especially here where the anti-Catholic satanic forces will bite on any weakness, we must be strong in The Faith!



The issue at hand was whether one goes to hell for such things. None of that makes one go to hell unless one dies unreprentent, which is exactly what I stated. Apparently you need to re-read for comprehension as well.


----------



## libby

Bavarian said:


> I find comments from the Radient1 disturbing.  Missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation ARE MORTAL sins and must be confessed to a priest quickly before one dies and goes straight to Hell.  Using artificial birth control is a mortal sin.  Getting a divorce and attempting remarrage without an annulment causes one to be Excommunicated.
> 
> These politicans and others who are in favor of abortion have excommunicated themselves.
> 
> If one can not follow the discipline of The Church, they are no longer Catholic and should stop calling themselves Catholic, the cafeteria is closed(. All or nothing.
> 
> Especially here where the anti-Catholic satanic forces will bite on any weakness, we must be strong in The Faith!



You are disturbing, Bavarian.  Take the plank out of your own eye and leave the speck in R1's.  It was probably your generation of Catholics that so bound people to the letter of the law, without remembering the spirit of the law, much like the Pharisees of Jesus' day, that drove people like IT out of the church.
God is infinitely just _and_ merciful.  All true that it is binding on Catholics to observe the precepts of the Church.  However, the reasons one might not observe are numerous: woefully inadequate CCD, abuse by priests, the culture we live in, etc.  The presumption of our Protestant bretheren is just as erroneous as you hellfire and damnation.
Leave the judgement of someone else's heart, soul and mind to God.


----------



## Bird Dog

libby said:


> You are disturbing, Bavarian.  Take the plank out of your own eye and leave the speck in R1's.  It was probably your generation of Catholics that so bound people to the letter of the law, without remembering the spirit of the law, much like the Pharisees of Jesus' day, that drove people like IT out of the church.
> God is infinitely just _and_ merciful.  All true that it is binding on Catholics to observe the precepts of the Church.  However, the reasons one might not observe are numerous: woefully inadequate CCD, abuse by priests, the culture we live in, etc.  The presumption of our Protestant bretheren is just as erroneous as you hellfire and damnation.
> Leave the judgement of someone else's heart, soul and mind to God.



Plus, we are forgiven.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> You are disturbing, Bavarian.  Take the plank out of your own eye and leave the speck in R1's.  It was probably your generation of Catholics that so bound people to the letter of the law, without remembering the spirit of the law, much like the Pharisees of Jesus' day, that drove people like IT out of the church.
> God is infinitely just _and_ merciful.  All true that it is binding on Catholics to observe the precepts of the Church.  However, the reasons one might not observe are numerous: woefully inadequate CCD, abuse by priests, the culture we live in, etc.  The presumption of our Protestant bretheren is just as erroneous as you hellfire and damnation.
> Leave the judgement of someone else's heart, soul and mind to God.



This is a good example to show that there are divisions of theological thought within the Roman Catholic teachings - just as Radiant1,onel026, and you, my dear libby, have criticized non-Catholics for!

You can't have it both ways if you continue to claim that papal authority and the magisterium are the official "interpreters" of God's Word and then you, Radiant1 and Bavarian disagree on what to accept and what not to accept as RCC Doctrine and Dogma.

From what I have read among all the Catholic posters in this forum, Bavarian is the most Orthodox of the RCC participants here and is the closest to following what has been handed down by the Vatican. In fact, Bavarian takes the RCC more seriously in the teachings than the others who claim to be Catholics.

Just sayin...


----------



## Bird Dog

Starman3000m said:


> This is a good example to show that there are divisions of theological thought within the Roman Catholic teachings - just as Radiant1,onel026, and you, my dear libby, have criticized non-Catholics for!
> 
> You can't have it both ways if you continue to claim that papal authority and the magisterium are the official "interpreters" of God's Word and then you, Radiant1 and Bavarian disagree on what to accept and what not to accept as RCC Doctrine and Dogma.
> 
> From what I have read among all the Catholic posters in this forum, Bavarian is the most Orthodox of the RCC participants here and is the closest to following what has been handed down by the Vatican. In fact, Bavarian takes the RCC more seriously in the teachings than the others who claim to be Catholics.
> 
> Just sayin...



I think Bavarian might of missed Vatcan II, a lot of things changed.

Your rants come from no authority other than yourself and your interpetations of the New Testament. 
No scholarly teachings
No discussions on theology over the past 2,000 years
No consensus except your strip mall bretheren
Not to mention your mother problem


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> I think Bavarian might of missed Vatcan II, a lot of things changed.
> 
> Your rants come from no authority other than yourself and your interpetations of the New Testament.
> No scholarly teachings
> No discussions on theology over the past 2,000 years
> No consensus except your strip mall bretheren
> Not to mention your mother problem



So, in other words, Vatican I had to be revised, eh? What was this about the infallibility of papal authority and the magisterium. 

And regarding "mother problem"  

Sorry, Radiant1,  but within Scripture of the Holy Bible Jesus directed His followers to turn to *His Father* in Heaven and also proclaimed that the way to the Father was through Him alone (John 14:6)

*There is Only One Truth*


----------



## libby

[





> QUOTE=Starman3000m;4533149]This is a good example to show that there are divisions of theological thought within the Roman Catholic teachings - just as Radiant1,onel026, and you, my dear libby, have criticized non-Catholics for!
> 
> You can't have it both ways if you continue to claim that papal authority and the magisterium are the official "interpreters" of God's Word and then you, Radiant1 and Bavarian disagree on what to accept and what not to accept as RCC Doctrine and Dogma.
> 
> From what I have read among all the Catholic posters in this forum, Bavarian is the most Orthodox of the RCC participants here and is the closest to following what has been handed down by the Vatican. In fact, Bavarian takes the RCC more seriously in the teachings than the others who claim to be Catholics.
> 
> Just sayin...


[/QUOTE]

That is not what happened here, SM.  I was calling Bav on his attitude, not his doctrine.  He is right about the doctrine, and R1 pointed out that she recognizes the doctrine as well



> unless one dies unreprentent, which is exactly what I stated



We're not arguing doctrine.  Sorry to disappoint you.
Just sayin...[/QUOTE]


----------



## libby

> I am out of time so I will answer the rest of your post later.


[/QUOTE]


Thank God for small miracles!


----------



## Bird Dog

Starman3000m said:


> So, in other words, Vatican I had to be revised, eh? What was this about the infallibility of papal authority and the magisterium.



They were given this ability to change 

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> That is not what happened here, SM.  I was calling Bav on his attitude, not his doctrine.  He is right about the doctrine, and R1 pointed out that she recognizes the doctrine as well
> 
> We're not arguing doctrine.  Sorry to disappoint you.
> Just sayin...



So, do you also wear the scapular and believe as Bavarian does that Mary allows souls into Heaven?


----------



## Bavarian

libby said:


> Nope.  Didn't get there again.  I go to an 11am Mass, so getting the kids settled and back out would get me to RR right when he's about to leave.  I really would like to go, though, so perhaps I'll try the 5pm vigil next week so I'm free to go to RR.





Radiant1 said:


> The issue at hand was whether one goes to hell for such things. None of that makes one go to hell unless one dies unreprentent, which is exactly what I stated. Apparently you need to re-read for comprehension as well.


To obtain absoultion for one's sins, one must confess their sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Confession.  The priest, who serves as a conduit of Christ. Gives absolution, if the person is contrite and makes a firm promise not to commit the sin again.


----------



## libby

Bavarian said:


> To obtain absoultion for one's sins, one must confess their sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Confession.  The priest, who serves as a conduit of Christ. Gives absolution, if the person is contrite and makes a firm promise not to commit the sin again.



What the heck does your statement have to do with the quotes from R1 and myself?


----------



## PsyOps

Bavarian said:


> To obtain absoultion for one's sins, one must confess their sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Confession.  The priest, who serves as a conduit of Christ. Gives absolution, if the person is contrite and makes a firm promise not to commit the sin again.



You mean until you sin again?  I mean what the purpose in the Priest asking when your last confession was?  If you 'obtain absoultion' why would you need to go to confession repeatedly?


----------



## Bavarian

libby said:


> What the heck does your statement have to do with the quotes from R1 and myself?



Hit wrong button on iPhone.  Was replying to a post which seemed to say one didn't need to confess one's sins to a priest, just pray.  This is a bad thing happening now which Cardinal Wuehl is trinv to stop and get people back to Confession.


----------



## Bavarian

PsyOps said:


> You mean until you sin again?  I mean what the purpose in the Priest asking when your last confession was?  If you 'obtain absoultion' why would you need to go to confession repeatedly?



First, we are human and not perfect, we keep on sinning and need forgiveness.  Plus, you receive Sacramental Grace by going to Confession.  Some people confess old, forgiven sins to earn this grace.


----------



## PsyOps

Bavarian said:


> First, we are human and not perfect, we keep on sinning and need forgiveness.  Plus, you receive Sacramental Grace by going to Confession.  Some people confess old, forgiven sins to earn this grace.



Perhaps I need a definition of 'absoultion'.


----------



## Starman3000m

*More Mary Worship*

From a statement by Pope Paul II



> I, too, have worn the Scapular of Carmel over my heart for a long time! Out of my love for our common heavenly Mother, whose protection I constantly experience, I hope that this Marian year will help all the men and women religious of Carmel and the devout faithful who venerate her with filial affection to grow in her love and to radiate to the world the presence of this Woman of silence and prayer, invoked as Mother of Mercy, Mother of Hope and Grace ..."   Pope John Paul II, March 25, 2001
> 
> Many popes and saints have strongly recommended wearing, the Brown Scapular to the Catholic Faithful, including St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope John XXII, Pope Pius Xl, and Pope Benedict XV. For example, St. Alphonsus said: "Just as men take pride in having others wear their livery, so the Most Holy Mary is pleased when Her servants wear Her Scapular as a mark that they have dedicated themselves to Her service, and are members of the Family of the Mother of God. Pope Pius XII went so far as to say: "The Scapular is a practice of piety which by its very simplicity is suited to everyone, and has spread widely among the faithful of Christ to their spiritual profit." In our own times, Pope Paul VI said: "Let the faithful hold in high esteem the practices and devotions to the Blessed Virgin...the Rosary and the Scapular of Carmel" and in another place referred to the Scapular as: "so highly recommended by Our illustrious predecessors." In order to receive the spiritual blessings associated with the Scapular, it is necessary to be formally enrolled in the Brown Scapular by either a priest or a lay person who has been given this faculty. Once enrolled, the enrollment is for life and need not be repeated. Anyone, adult or infant, who has not previously been enrolled may be enrolled in the Brown Scapular.
> Brown Scapular





> Participation in this devotion is open to non-Catholics as well.


----------



## Bavarian

Starman3000m said:


> From a statement by Pope Paul II



You are so close to the truth!  I pray you find Mary and enroll in the RCIA and be accepted into the Catholic Church.


----------



## Starman3000m

Bavarian said:


> You are so close to the truth!  I pray you find Mary and enroll in the RCIA and be accepted into the Catholic Church.



Sorry, Bavarian, devotions directed to Mary (and to the RCC "saints") are considered idolatry. 



> And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
> Little children, *keep yourselves from idols.* Amen. (1 John 5:20-21)



*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Bavarian

libby said:


> [



That is not what happened here, SM.  I was calling Bav on his attitude, not his doctrine.  He is right about the doctrine, and R1 pointed out that she recognizes the doctrine as well



We're not arguing doctrine.  Sorry to disappoint you.
Just sayin...[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]



PsyOps said:


> Perhaps I need a definition of 'absoultion'.



Absolution forgives the sins you committed and confessed, not future sins.  Plus, in Confession, the priest can and will give you guidance on how to live a life that God want you to, and how to keep yourself strong to avoid temptations and future sins.  You get free counseling.


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> The issue at hand was whether one goes to hell for such things. None of that makes one go to hell unless one dies unreprentent, which is exactly what I stated. Apparently you need to re-read for comprehension as well.


Having no assurance of salvation must be such a burden. Never has a bigger lie been uttered by the devil to deceive God's children than this, which empties the cross of it's power and limits God's sovereignty over HIS creation. 

*John 6:35-40,44 (English Standard Version)*


> 35Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.



*Romans 8:31-39 (English Standard Version)*


> 31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? *33Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?* 36As it is written,
> 
> "For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
> we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered."
> 
> 37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.



AMEN!

Hopefully for you, you don't commit a mortal sin and then get hit by a bus before you have a chance to go to confession. What a burden, relying on your own merit to keep what Jesus already purchased on the cross, which is your redemption and justification for those who believe! 

Jesus says 

*Matthew 11:27-30 (English Standard Version)*


> 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."


----------



## Radiant1

Bavarian said:


> Hit wrong button on iPhone.  Was replying to a post which seemed to say one didn't need to confess one's sins to a priest, just pray.  This is a bad thing happening now which Cardinal Wuehl is trinv to stop and get people back to Confession.



Did I miss something, because I didn't see anything regarding Reconciliation with the last umpteen pages of this thread. Not that it's anyone's business but mine and God's Bavarian, but I do confess my sins in the sacrament of Reconciliation often.



Starman3000m said:


> This is a good example to show that there are divisions of theological thought within the Roman Catholic teachings - just as Radiant1,onel026, and you, my dear libby, have criticized non-Catholics for!
> 
> You can't have it both ways if you continue to claim that papal authority and the magisterium are the official "interpreters" of God's Word and then you, Radiant1 and Bavarian disagree on what to accept and what not to accept as RCC Doctrine and Dogma.



As Libby pointed out, we are not discussing doctrine. Nor for that matter are we discussing theology. We are discussing expression of our faith, which is an example to you that there is much room to breathe within the so-called confines of Catholicism. I can only guess that Bavarian is not familiar or comfortable with my style of apologetics.



Starman3000m said:


> From what I have read among all the Catholic posters in this forum, Bavarian is the most Orthodox of the RCC participants here and is the closest to following what has been handed down by the Vatican. In fact, Bavarian takes the RCC more seriously in the teachings than the others who claim to be Catholics.
> 
> Just sayin...



It would appear to me that we are all orthodox; however, Bavarian is a traditionalist. He very well may take some issue with Vatican II, but consents to it anyway. I don't know, you'd have to ask him.



Starman3000m said:


> So, in other words, Vatican I had to be revised, eh? What was this about the infallibility of papal authority and the magisterium.



No. Vatican II is not a revision of Vatican I. Neither has anything to do with infallibility either. You, like baydoll, has need to educate yourself on what it is you are attacking before you attack it.



Starman3000m said:


> Sorry, Radiant1,  but within Scripture of the Holy Bible Jesus directed His followers to turn to *His Father* in Heaven and also proclaimed that the way to the Father was through Him alone (John 14:6)



I'm not sure why you are mentioning me? I don't take issue with scripture. Yes, the only way to the Father is through Jesus. Mary doesn't take us to the Father, she points the way to the Son, Jesus, who Himself and only Himself takes us to the Father. Much as you and I have been pointing each other to the Son, yes?



Starman3000m said:


> From a statement by Pope Paul II



Please do understand the difference between reverence and worship. We don't worship Mary. We do, however, revere her and hold her in high regard, as is fitting.



Starman3000m said:


> Sorry, Bavarian, devotions directed to Mary (and to the RCC "saints") are considered idolatry.



With that way of thinking, then is it safe to say you are not devoted to your spouse, children, parents, job, <insert anything else of value and worth here>? I'm guessing you don't since you are so afraid of idolatry.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> ... No. Vatican II is not a revision of Vatican I. Neither has anything to do with infallibility either. You, like baydoll, has need to educate yourself on what it is you are attacking before you attack it.



OK - please explain the changes that libby mentioned to Bavarian. It sounded like she was saying Bavarian was "old school" teaching and that is what drove people like IS away from the Catholic Church.  Please explain.

- Thanks



> I'm not sure why you are mentioning me? I don't take issue with scripture. Yes, the only way to the Father is through Jesus. Mary doesn't take us to the Father, she points the way to the Son, Jesus, who Himself and only Himself takes us to the Father. Much as you and I have been pointing each other to the Son, yes?
> 
> Please do understand the difference between reverence and worship. We don't worship Mary. We do, however, revere her and hold her in high regard, as is fitting.



But you actually do believe in "another Jesus" if you follow the RCC.  The Jesus that the RCC teaches is assisted in Heaven by Mary where she reigns as "ever perpetual virgin," "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," "Benefactress," "co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," and helps souls get into Heaven.

That is neither the Jesus of the New Testament nor the Mary of the New Testament accounts.



> With that way of thinking, then is it safe to say you are not devoted to your spouse, children, parents, job, <insert anything else of value and worth here>? I'm guessing you don't since you are so afraid of idolatry.



Devotion in the sense of human love toward others and responsibility toward our jobs cannot even be compared to the religious devotions that the RCC mandates for revering Mary and the "saints".  Those religious "devotions" become idolatrous by the very nature in how they are conducted and directed to another object as "mediator" or "intercessor" between you and God. You are placing an obstacle(s) between you and direct communication with God when the Holy Bible states that we can go "boldly" before the Throne of God in our prayers and petitions with Christ alone as our High Priest and Mediator.



> Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
> For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
> Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
> (Hebrews 4:14-16)



*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## libby

> Hopefully for you, you don't commit a mortal sin and then get hit by a bus before you have a chance to go to confession. What a burden, relying on your own merit to keep what Jesus already purchased on the cross, which is your redemption and justification for those who believe!




When one remains in the grace of Christ then he really needn't "fear" committing a mortal sin.  Do you even know how the Church defines a mortal sin? (without looking it up)
The whole idea of doing something for someone you love being a "burden" is such a pitiful way of thinking.  Was it a "burden" to take care of my dear father as he was dying?  No, it was a joy to give back to him some fraction of what he gave to me.  It's no "burden" to keep the commandments of God and His Son, Jesus Christ.  It is my joy!   
How ungrateful are you all to take, take, take from Jesus Christ and give nothing back to Him for His incredible Sacrifice of Love for you.

Hope your children don't treat you that way.


----------



## libby

> Devotion in the sense of human love toward others and responsibility toward our jobs cannot even be compared



It most certainly should be compared, as human love is a reflection, a poor reflection, but a reflection nonetheless, of the love of God.
Gosh your faith is sad!  You miss out on the incredible family God intended for all of us to be.
He intended perfect love, between all of us.  That was how He made us in the first place and that is what He desires that we will all come to.  It does not take away from God when we love His other children.


----------



## Zguy28

libby said:


> When one remains in the grace of Christ then he really needn't "fear" committing a mortal sin.  Do you even know how the Church defines a mortal sin? (without looking it up)
> The whole idea of doing something for someone you love being a "burden" is such a pitiful way of thinking.  Was it a "burden" to take care of my dear father as he was dying?  No, it was a joy to give back to him some fraction of what he gave to me.  It's no "burden" to keep the commandments of God and His Son, Jesus Christ.  It is my joy!
> How ungrateful are you all to take, take, take from Jesus Christ and give nothing back to Him for His incredible Sacrifice of Love for you.
> 
> Hope your children don't treat you that way.


You act like we do not work out our salvation. We believe in works also, and the flow out of our faith, but do not justify us.

We work from gratitude to Christ. The RCC'ers on the other hand always have the fear of dying without repenting and suffering eternal Hell.

Unless you are saying it's impossible for a saved person to commit a mortal sin? Is that what you are saying? If so, then I was wrong.


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> You act like we do not work out our salvation. We believe in works also, and the flow out of our faith, but do not justify us.
> 
> We work from gratitude to Christ. The RCC'ers on the other hand always have the fear of dying without repenting and suffering eternal Hell.
> 
> Unless you are saying it's impossible for a saved person to commit a mortal sin? Is that what you are saying? If so, then I was wrong.



We don't believe in OSAS, but I would argue that a person who truly believes and loves Christ is very, very, very unlikely to commit a mortal sin, although it is possible.  But further, even if that person did commit a mortal sin, it is very, very, very unlikely that he would be unrepentant.  However, that free will _is _still there, and Satan is still trying to tempt that soul away from God.


----------



## Zguy28

libby said:


> However, that free will _is _still there, and Satan is still trying to tempt that soul away from God.


Do you truly believe that Satan can snatch somebody who truly belongs to Christ, away from God ?

You know Christ is more powerful than that Libby. I have read it in your posts.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> It most certainly should be compared, as human love is a reflection, a poor reflection, but a reflection nonetheless, of the love of God.
> Gosh your faith is sad!  You miss out on the incredible family God intended for all of us to be.
> He intended perfect love, between all of us.  That was how He made us in the first place and that is what He desires that we will all come to.  It does not take away from God when we love His other children.



  You're twisting things again libby.  The context of my post indicated that the love and devotion we have toward others and responsibilites to our job should not be compared to the "religious devotion" that the RCC requires you to give to Mary and the "saints" which becomes "idolatrous" by the very nature in which you express those devotions. 

According to the New Testament teachings, there are no indications that Mary or the "saints" are in a capacity in Heaven - hearing your prayers and accepting your "devotions" that you direct toward them.  On the contrary, only Christ has resurrected unto eternal life and it is He who is our High Priest and Mediator.

The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.



> For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
> 
> But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
> As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)
> 
> The written words of the Holy Bible contain all the essential truths that brings a person to the Salvation Grace that God offers through the Atoning Blood of Christ and there is no mention that Mary would ever join Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," Benefactress," co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," etc.



Jesus is the resurrected Saviour of mankind; There Is Proof of that. 
There is no Biblical proof that Mary resurrected and was assumed up to Heaven. *No Proof - No Truth!* 

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## tiger78

thatguy said:


> Here is a question for all the non catholics: Where is Mary now? did she go to heaven?



I don't know where Mary is right now, the Bible does not address that.  My opinion is that she was faithful to death and has a home in heaven.  
I believe that she was blessed by God.  She was faithful to her Saviour, who happened to also be her child.  There are not many words of Mary recorded in scripture outside of her prayer/response to hearing that she would bear the Saviour.   However, I find her words at the wedding to be resounding...she said "Do whatever he says"  ( He being Jesus).  And that is in agreement with the scriptures because we are commanded to follow One Shepherd and listen to His Voice and that shepherd is Jesus the Christ.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Please do understand the difference between reverence and worship. We don't worship Mary. We do, however, revere her and hold her in high regard, as is fitting.


IF you pray the "Hail Mary" you worship her. End of story. Should I quote the words for you? Oh the blindness...


Starman3000m said:


> OK - please explain the changes that libby mentioned to Bavarian. It sounded like she was saying Bavarian was "old school" teaching and that is what drove people like IS away from the Catholic Church.  Please explain.


I made it clear before as to what drove me away. All the "thou shalt nots" and forced holydays. I could no longer stand those masses. Endless, meaningless repitition, sometimes 3 times a week. I knew I was Heaven bound because I endured that Hell! I'm curious if that's what Libby meant also...

I also hated confessing what I did wrong to a stranger. That was creepy and I never liked it...EVER! I used to try to go to a priest who didn't know me all that well so he wouldn't recognize my voice. A few times I went in but didn't kneel down so he wouldn't know I was in there. Later, after I realized that this was not getting me forgiven, I was furious! Mark 2v7 folks!: "ONLY GOD CAN FORGIVE SINS"...


----------



## ItalianScallion

tiger78 said:


> I don't know where Mary is right now, the Bible does not address that.  My opinion is that she was faithful to death and has a home in heaven.


Exactly right. We do not know when she died or when Joseph died but I'm positive that she is in Heaven. 

If the Bible is silent on an issue, we should be also. It like life on other planets or solar systems: The Bible is silent on that. That means we cannot authoritatively say there is or there isn't. Plain & simple.

Welcome to the assylum Tiger78!


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> Do you truly believe that Satan can snatch somebody who truly belongs to Christ, away from God ?
> 
> You know Christ is more powerful than that Libby. I have read it in your posts.



Absolutely NOT!  I believe that we have free will, though, and that Satan is tempting us to turn away from the will of God in our lives.  That's not snatching, that is a free will decision.


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> Having no assurance of salvation must be such a burden. Never has a bigger lie been uttered by the devil to deceive God's children than this, which empties the cross of it's power and limits God's sovereignty over HIS creation.



That as opposed to thinking one is gold and then doing whatever the hell they want sinning willfully. You might as well be a Wiccan.

I participate with God's grace. I w_ork out my salvation with fear and trembling_ and _persevere to the end_. I assume there is no need for me to quote chapter and verse there for you.

Btw, your quote of John says SHOULD, not WILL. You are putting meaning to scripture that isn't there. In addition regarding your quote of Romans, why do you suppose Jesus is intercedING for us? It doesn't say He intercedED once and was done.



Starman3000m said:


> OK - please explain the changes that libby mentioned to Bavarian. It sounded like she was saying Bavarian was "old school" teaching and that is what drove people like IS away from the Catholic Church.  Please explain.



The Church from time to time holds councils to re-affirm dogma when necessary, release encyclicals for pastoral reasons, renew the spirit of the faithful, and make reforms. Vatican II made changes to the liturgy in order to usher more active participation from the laity. I'm fairly certain Bavarian still attends the Tridentine Mass, which is still said in Latin, but you'd have to ask him.



ItalianScallion said:


> IF you pray the "Hail Mary" you worship her. End of story. Should I quote the words for you? Oh the blindness...



No, not end of story. The Hail Mary is a request for intercession. No need to quote the words for me, I pray it often.

_Hail Mary full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen._

I would also ask you to pray for me IS!  Other than that, the rest is scripture. If you see Mary worship in that, then surely it's because you are biased and blinded, and that's what you want to see.


----------



## Zguy28

Libby said:
			
		

> Absolutely NOT! I believe that we have free will, though, and that Satan is tempting us to turn away from the will of God in our lives. That's not snatching, that is a free will decision.


I respectfully disagree. And I think I have clearly presented my case. 


Radiant1 said:


> That as opposed to thinking one is gold and then doing whatever the hell they want sinning willfully. You might as well be a Wiccan.


Ahh, you know that is not the case. What comes first, the tree or the fruit?

Does the fruit make the tree good, or does the tree make the fruit good?



> I participate with God's grace. I w_ork out my salvation with fear and trembling_ and _persevere to the end_. I assume there is no need for me to quote chapter and verse there for you.


As do I. This does not go against what I have said.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Btw, your quote of John says SHOULD, not WILL. You are putting meaning to scripture that isn't there. In addition regarding your quote of Romans, why do you suppose Jesus is intercedING for us? It doesn't say He intercedED once and was done.


Yes, because if He was not interceding continually, we would fall away. Every one of us. 

Do you think heaven is subject to linear time?



			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> No, not end of story. The Hail Mary is a request for intercession. No need to quote the words for me, I pray it often.
> 
> _Hail Mary full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen._
> 
> I would also ask you to pray for me IS!  Other than that, the rest is scripture. If you see Mary worship in that, then surely it's because you are biased and blinded, and that's what you want to see.


Don't you think it is a matter of conscience? I can see a church holding to a particular belief (even though I disagree) about saints who have passed on still answering prayers, but if that is a stumbling block to a Christian...what then?

What did Paul tell the church at Corinth about this very matter?

To you the Hail Mary may not be a big deal, just as eating meat sacrificed to idols was not a big deal to some, but to others it causes them to feel like they sinned the sin of idolatry and it sears their conscience.


----------



## Bird Dog

ItalianScallion said:


> IF you pray the "Hail Mary" you worship her. End of story. Should I quote the words for you? Oh the blindness...
> 
> I made it clear before as to what drove me away. All the "thou shalt nots" and S"...



Which "shalt nots" do you do now, now that you no longer practice Catholicism?


----------



## toppick08

Bird Dog said:


> Which "shalt nots" do you do now, now that you no longer practice Catholicism?



Thank Christ.


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> Ahh, you know that is not the case. What comes first, the tree or the fruit?
> 
> Does the fruit make the tree good, or does the tree make the fruit good?



Actually I don't know that's the case. True story: A so-called friend of mine was a born-again non-denominational sort. She preached to me often that because I was Catholic I wasn't saved and she was. She was JUST SO SURE OF IT. I found out later the whole time she was stealing from me. I was told by another born-again non-denominational type that if she was stealing from me she wasn't saved after all. However, she surely thought so.

Apparently, there is no real assurance of salvation even for those who think there is. 



Zguy28 said:


> As do I. This does not go against what I have said.



'Splain. 



Zguy28 said:


> Yes, because if He was not interceding continually, we would fall away. Every one of us.
> 
> Do you think heaven is subject to linear time?



Fair enough (for now). I notice you didn't respond to my comment about your eisegesis of John.

Not particularly, no. It's good to know you don't.



Zguy28 said:


> Don't you think it is a matter of conscience? I can see a church holding to a particular belief (even though I disagree) about saints who have passed on still answering prayers, but if that is a stumbling block to a Christian...what then?
> 
> What did Paul tell the church at Corinth about this very matter?
> 
> To you the Hail Mary may not be a big deal, just as eating meat sacrificed to idols was not a big deal to some, but to others it causes them to feel like they sinned the sin of idolatry and it sears their conscience.



To compare the Hail Mary to eating meat sacrificed by idols is apples and oranges. 

The only stumbling block here is IS's own -- being over-scrupulous, pharasaical, and imposing his conscience on other Christians.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by Radiant1:
> 
> Let's see what Ireneus does in fact say and take it all in it's context; Against Heresies Book 3, Paragraphs 2-3:
> 
> Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.
> 
> The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles…




You wanna point out where in the above quote, Ireneus said Peter was the first bishop of Rome, Radiant? 



> Originally Posted by Radiant1:
> 
> As you can see, Hippolytus agrees with Ireneus. Peter was martyred in ROME and Linus then became bishop. I don't care if you feel the need to grasp at straws on this, the reality remains the same. Linus succeeded Peter.



Neither Hippolytus nor Ireneus said Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, Radiant, you are the one grasping for straws here. 

Here is Hippolytus's list of Bishops again:



> 1. Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia, and Betania, and Italy, and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by Nero in Rome with his head downward, as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner.
> 
> 2. Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians . . .
> 
> The Same Hippolytus ON The Seventy Apostles.
> 
> 1. James the Lord's brother, bishop of Jerusalem.
> 
> 2. Cleopas, bishop of Jerusalem.
> 
> 3. Matthias, who supplied the vacant place in the number of the twelve apostles.
> 
> 4. Thaddeus, who conveyed the epistle to Augarus.
> 
> 5. Ananias, who baptized Paul, and was bishop of Damascus.
> 
> 6. Stephen, the first martyr.
> 
> 7. Philip, who baptized the eunuch.
> 
> 8. Prochorus, bishop of Nicomedia, who also was the first that departed, believing together with his daughters.
> 
> 9. Nicanor died when Stephen was martyred.
> 
> 10. Timon, bishop of Bostra.
> 
> 11. Parmenas, bishop of Soli.
> 
> 12. Nicolaus, bishop of Samaria.
> 
> 13. Barnabas, bishop of Milan.
> 
> 14. Mark the evangelist, bishop of Alexandria.
> 
> 15. Luke the evangelist.
> 
> These two belonged to the seventy disciples who were scattered by the offence of the word which Christ spoke, "Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me." But the one being induced to return to the Lord by Peter's instrumentality, and the other by Paul's, they were honoured to preach that Gospel on account of which they also suffered martyrdom, the one being burned, and the other being crucified on an olive tree.
> 
> 16. Silas, bishop of Corinth.
> 
> 17. Silvanus, bishop of Thessalonica.
> 
> 18. Crisces (Crescens), bishop of Carchedon in Gaul.
> 
> 19. Epaenetus, bishop of Carthage.
> 
> 20. Andronicus, bishop of Pannonia.
> 
> 21. Amplias, bishop of Odyssus.
> 
> 22. Urban, bishop of Macedonia.
> 
> 23. Stachys, bishop of Byzantium.
> 
> 24. Barnabas, bishop of Heraclea.
> 
> 25. Phygellus, bishop of Ephesus. He was of the party also of Simon.
> 
> 26. Hermogenes. He, too, was of the same mind with the former.
> 
> 27. Demas, who also became a priest of idols.
> 
> 28. Apelles, bishop of Smyrna.
> 
> 29. Aristobulus, bishop of Britain.
> 
> 30. Narcissus, bishop of Athens.
> 
> 31. Herodion, bishop of Tarsus.
> 
> 32. Agabus the prophet.
> 
> 33. Rufus, bishop of Thebes.
> 
> 34. Asyncritus, bishop of Hyrcania.
> 
> 35. Phlegon, bishop of Marathon.
> 
> 36. Hermes, bishop of Dalmatia.
> 
> 37. Patrobulus, bishop of Puteoli.
> 
> 38. Hermas, bishop of Philippi.
> 
> 39. Linus, bishop of Rome.
> 
> 40. Caius, bishop of Ephesus.
> 
> 41. Philologus, bishop of Sinope.



Do you see the name of Peter in his list of Rome's bishops?

Again, Hippolytus goes to some trouble to describe where Peter preached the Gospel - yet failed to mention either Rome, or Peter's supposedly being bishop of Rome. 

Why this oversight?

Why the need to ignore the fact that both Hippolytus AND Ireneus failed to list Peter as first Bishop of Rome?

Again, from Clement:



> "There is a letter in which this same Clement writing to James the Lord's brother, gives an account of the death of Peter, and says that he has left him as his successor, as ruler and teacher of the church; and further incorporates a whole scheme of ecclesiastical government. This I have not prefixed to the work, both because it is later in point of time, and because it has been previously translated and published by me. Nevertheless, there is a point which would perhaps seem inconsistent with facts were I to place the translation of it in this work, but which I do not consider to involve an impossibility. It is this. Linus and Cletus were Bishops of the city of Rome before Clement. How then, some men ask, can Clement in his, letter to James say that Peter passed over to him his position as a church-teacher. The explanation of this point, as I understand, is as follows. Linus and Cletus were, no doubt," Bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but this was in Peter's life-time; " (St. Clement, Addressed to Bishop Gaudentis, from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second series, Vol III. Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume III, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.




Again, how could Linus be bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive?

If Linus was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, does that not mean that Linus, not even an Apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul - two living Apostles?



> *Radiant1:* It means Peter appointed Linus as his successor, as was stated above.



So when did he do so? Do you have any actual evidence of this? And since when does a pope succeed a prior pope while that pope is still alive?


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> insert baydoll's anal semantic bs squawking here



I'll let everything stand on it's own as I have it. 

He that has ears to hear, let him hear.


----------



## libby

Radiant1 said:


> I'll let everything stand on it's own as I have it.
> 
> He that has ears to hear, let him hear.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> It's extraordinarily disingenguous of you to call Johan vonDollinger the Catholic's "own best historian", for surely you know that he was ex-communicated for his views. That aside, he is one historian, not the majority.



Actually, for many years vonDollinger WAS your Church's own best historian, Radiant. And the ONLY reason WHY he was ex-communicated was because  he had the b***s to stand up and say that the entire Roman Catholic papacy was conceived and constructed as fabrications, and because the claims had no validity, forgeries and deception was used to make it appear like they did.

"Dollinger was one of the most celebrated Roman Catholic historians of the late 18th century. Just before Vatican I, which convened to discuss the issues of papal rule and infallibility, he co-authored a book under the pseudonym, Janus, titled The Pope and the Council. In it he appealed to this council, in light of the facts of history, not to pass decrees that would contradict the truth. 

His plea fell on deaf ears. 

He refused to recant his position and was later excommunicated from the church he loved. His commitment to truth exacted an enormous price. When asked why he would not repudiate his intellect and reason for the sake of communion with Rome he stated: 



> Because...if I did so in a question which is for the historical eye perfectly clear and unambiguous, there would then be no longer for me any such thing as historical truth and certainty; I should then have to suppose that my whole life long I had been in a world of dizzy illusion, and that in historical matters I am altogether incapable of distinguishing truth from fable and falsehood.



I stand, a former Roman Catholic, with thousands whose conscience has compelled them to leave the church they once loved. So I reiterate the counsel of Catholic apologist Karl Keating: 

'we have a solemn responsibility to seek and respond to truth.' 

That will be costly. I believe that a Roman Catholic who is sincerely committed to following truth will eventually leave the Roman Catholic Church, realizing as the Reformers taught that it is not the historic, biblical, holy, catholic church. Keating and Hahn feel no qualms about urging men and women to forsake evangelical Christianity for Roman Catholicism.

 I appeal to you, then, on the basis of the truth of history and Scripture, to leave your Catholic heritage. I give you the following reasons. 

First, the ultimate commitment the Scriptures call us to is the person of Christ, not a church. We are called to trust, love, worship, and follow Christ exclusively. Inherent in that commitment is full acceptance of all that Scripture teaches regarding salvation and, in particular, the truth of the gospel. Paul states in Galatians 1:6-8 that any who embrace a perverted gospel actually deserts Christ. If a Roman Catholic obeys the salvation teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, it must logically result in disobedience to God and a desertion of Christ because these selfsame teachings invalidate God's Word. The Scriptures point us to the person of Christ, not a church, as the source of our eternal salvation. 

The 'gospel' promulgated by the Church of Rome is a perversion of the gospel of grace. Therefore, to stay within Roman Catholicism is to be identified with a system that fundamentally denies the sufficiency of the work of Christ alone. Christ lays the issue squarely before us in uncompromising terms when He says, 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it' (Mark 8:34-35).

There is no mention of the church as a means of salvation here or anywhere else in Scripture. To follow Christ means a life of denying self to live for His sake and the gospel's. This means we must be openly identified with Him and His truth and be willing to suffer the rejection, the ostracism, the criticism, and even loss of life that such identification can bring. Centuries of faithful evangelical Christians have learned these truths by sailing through such troubled waters.

 Can we do less, if necessary? 

There is a cross at the very center of our identification with Christ and His gospel. Jesus makes clear that we cannot seek peace and unity at any cost. Truth divides. 

Much of the ecumenical movement of the last fifty years or so would have us downplay the importance of truth for the sake of unity. But the ultimate issue is not unity; it is commitment to Christ. And that means a commitment to truth. 

The whole basis for church unity and for following and worshiping Christ is the truth of the gospel (cf. John 4:23-24; Galatians 1:6-8; Ephesians 1:13; Philippians 1:27-28; 3:2-11; Colossians 2:6-15.). 

If we forsake truth for a man-made unity, we actually forsake Christ! 

Finally, I appeal to Roman Catholics to come out because the Church of Rome is moving farther and farther away from truth. The church has historically demonstrated a terrible resistance to correction and reform.


By the anathemas of Trent and Vatican I and the papal decrees on Mary we have seen a continued and progressive departure from truth and a hardening of the Roman Church theologically against the gospel. On the other hand, there is a disturbing trend developing, a growing tolerance of pagan religions in the name of unity and peace.

 In 1986, when the pope stood with the representatives of the major religions of the world on a public platform to pray for peace, he did something that would have been unthinkable for a bishop of the catholic church in the early centuries of Christianity.

Can you imagine a bishop of the second century standing on a public platform with the representatives of Gnosticism, Roman deities, and other pagan religions to pray for peace? 

Such a person would have been condemned for apostasy. 

Christ's gospel proclaims the fact that He alone is the answer to the sin of the world and that He alone can bring peace to men's hearts.

 I ask you, can one be true to Christ and remain in a system that so fundamentally denies Him in teaching and practice? Ponder your answer carefully.

 The issues that separate Protestants and Roman Catholics are not minor. They are major. They have to do with the eternal destinies of men and women. They hit right at the heart of truth, both biblical and historical. The defining issue is truth. The Reformation was not unnecessary, unjustified, or a tragedy. The tragedy lies in the fact that it was necessary. It was, in fact, one of the greatest revivals ever witnessed in the history of the church, and it restored the church to the truth of the true gospel that had become obscured and perverted through the traditions of men. 

~ William Webster Did I Really Leave The Holy Catholic Church?

Untitled Document


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> I'll let everything stand on it's own as I have it.
> 
> He that has ears to hear, let him hear.



In other words, you can't a refute a word I say so instead you attack me personally. 

 Gee how Christlike of you.


----------



## baydoll

> Thank God for small miracles!



It would be a real miracle if you ever actually responded to any of my question intelligently in a mature thoughtful manner, libby, instead of acting like a small spoiled brat.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> I don't, as there are no contradictions to resolve.



Of course you would say that. But is it the truth?

Augustine:

"In like manner, God hath made the Scriptures to stoop to the capacities of babes and sucklings." (Enarr. In Psalm, viii, 8, Vol. Iv., 42) 

"Scarcely anything is drawn out from the more obscure places of Scripture which is not most plainly spoken elsewhere." (De Doct. Crh. Ii, 8. Vol. Iii, 22).

 "Mary, springing from Adam, died because of sin; and the flesh of our Lord, derived from Mary, died to take away sin." (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii, c. 24).


"For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, "On this rock will I build my Church," because Peter had said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus." (Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume VII, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. 

"For Christ Himself is the tower, Himself for us hath been made a tower from the face of the enemy, who is also the Rock whereon hath been builded the Church." (Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume VIII, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.) 

Chrysostom


We do not request you to go to confess your sins to any of your fellow-men, but only to God!" (Chrysostom, Homily on 50th Psalm) 

"We do not ask you to go and confess your iniquities to a sinful man for pardon - but only to God." (Ibid.) 

"You need no witness of your confession. Secretly acknowledge your sins and let God alone hear you." (Chrysostom, De Paenitentia, Volume IV, Col. 901) 

"Therefore, I beseech you, always confess your sins to God! I, in no way, ask you to confess them to me. To God alone should you expose the wounds of your soul, and from him alone expect the cure. Go to Him, then, and you shall not be cast off, but healed. For, before you utter a single word, God knows your prayer." (Chrysostom, De Incomprehensibili, Volume I, Homily V) 

All things are plain and simple in the Holy Scriptures; all things necessary are evident." (2 Thessalonians, Homily III, Volume xi, 528) 

"'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church;' that is, on the faith of his confession." (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford: Parker, 1844; Homilies of S. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily 54.3) 

"' And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church;' that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit and makes him a shepherd, 'And the gates of hell' shall not prevail against it." (Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume X (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.) 

Cyril:

 "Now by the word 'rock,' Jesus indicated I think the immovable faith of the disciple." (Commentary on Isaiah IV.2, M.P.G., Vol. 70, Col 940.) 

Cyprian:

"I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; " yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity." [Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume V, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.] 

Gregory:

"Seeing, then, that you know the integrity of our faith from my plain utterance and profession, it is right that you should have no further scruple of doubt with respect to the Church of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles: but persist ye in the true faith, and make your life firm on the rock of the Church; that is on the confession of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, lest all those tears of yours and all those good works should come to nothing, if they are found alien from the true faith" [Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume XII, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.] 

Ireneus:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel is come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." [Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 1, Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 3.1.1, P. 414] 

Tertullian:

This sentence both "loosed" those parts of the law which were abandoned, and "bound" those which were reserved. Hence the power of loosing and of binding committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers; and if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother sinning against him even "seventy times sevenfold," of course He would have commanded him to "bind"--that is, to "retain" [Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume IV, Tertullian, Chapter XXI (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.] 

And there are many more....


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> Ok. And?



Read it again Radiant:



> Irenaeus:
> 
> "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel is come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us *in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith*." [Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 1, Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 3.1.1, P. 414]



Here Irenaeus states that SCRIPTURE must be the basis of our faith. This pretty much contradicts what your Church claims/teaches/preaches that IT, not the Scripture, is the ground and pillar of our faith.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> It would be a real miracle if you ever actually responded to any of my question intelligently in a mature thoughtful manner, libby, instead of acting like a small spoiled brat.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> In other words, you can't a refute a word I say so instead you attack me personally.
> 
> Gee how Christlike of you.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


>





Thanks for proving my previous point! 

Your (and Radiant's) lack of maturity and thoughtfullness and honesty is extremely telling.


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> *you attack me personally*.
> 
> *Gee how Christlike of you.*





baydoll said:


> *acting like a small spoiled brat*.



You accuse me of attacking you personally, and then nearly in the same breath attack Libby personally. That's not to mention your previous behavior. 

baydoll, if you're the epitome of Christ-like I think I should become agnostic.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> That as opposed to thinking one is gold and then doing whatever the hell they want sinning willfully. You are putting meaning to scripture that isn't there.


Why must you always assume that "once saved always saved" means we can do whatever we want after we're saved? How about reading (Galatians 5:13 and 1 Peter 2:16)? 

You really do not understand God's grace & regeneration do you? You completely miss the fact that true salvation changes our mental and spiritual outlook on life. We look at things through God's eyes and we (should) no longer want to "do whatever the hell we want". When we do slip up, it's usually for a short time and we try hard not to repeat it because the Holy Spirit is guiding us. You make us sound like we have no control over our actions if we believe in OSAS. Do you have that problem? Is this why you think it's wrong to admit that you cannot be lost after being saved? That sure sounds like you have to work to stay saved. 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> No, not end of story. The Hail Mary is a request for intercession. No need to quote the words for me, I pray it often.
> _Hail Mary full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen._ I would also ask you to pray for me IS!  Other than that, the rest is scripture. If you see Mary worship in that, then surely it's because you are biased and blinded, and that's what you want to see.


Oh no; I love you too much NOT to pray for you my friend. I do it every night.

So how bout the first word? "Hail". Just saying hello I guess?

Why is it necessary to repeat it 50 times? Maybe dead people hear you after the 49th time?

And you have no problem with the "Mother of God" line even though God has no mother or father? I'd still have a BIG problem with that prayer even if it were changed to correctly say: "mother of Jesus". 

What about all those statues, shrines & masses dedicated to Mary? Pul-ease Radiant1; stop being stubborn and admit the truth! The idolatry is deafening here...God couldn't be any more upset at this whether you folks acknowledge it or not. 


Bird Dog said:


> Which "shalt nots" do you do now, now that you no longer practice Catholicism?


The worst "thou shalt not" that I do today would be the things I say when I get behind the most ignorant drivers in the world. Other than that, I do pretty good overall. Why do you ask?


Radiant1 said:


> True story: A so-called friend of mine was a born-again non-denominational sort. She preached to me often that because I was Catholic I wasn't saved and she was. She was JUST SO SURE OF IT. I found out later the whole time she was stealing from me. I was told by another born-again non-denominational type that if she was stealing from me she wasn't saved after all. However, she surely thought so. Apparently, there is no real assurance of salvation even for those who think there is.


Apparently you judge an entire belief system by one person's actions? Nice!
Are you saying that she should be sinless after she gets saved? She cannot say that you're not saved because you're a Catholic but, apparently, you partially believed her. 

Second, "not everyone who calls Jesus, Lord, will enter the kingdom of Heaven". I know you know that.

So tell me Radiant1, why did John say that there is a "real assurance of our salvation" if there isn't? (1 John 5:13, 14). John calls it "the confidence we have in Christ". Could it be that you just refuse to feel it?


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Thanks for proving my previous point!
> 
> Your (and Radiant's) lack of maturity and thoughtfullness and honesty is extremely telling.


----------



## libby

ItalianScallion said:


> Why must you always assume that "once saved always saved" means we can do whatever we want after we're saved? How about reading (Galatians 5:13 and 1 Peter 2:16)?
> 
> You really do not understand God's grace & regeneration do you? You completely miss the fact that true salvation changes our mental and spiritual outlook on life. We look at things through God's eyes and we (should) no longer want to "do whatever the hell we want". When we do slip up, it's usually for a short time and we try hard not to repeat it because the Holy Spirit is guiding us. You make us sound like we have no control over our actions if we believe in OSAS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not think you are denying free will here, though?  Seriously now, IT, all bantering aside, you've said pretty much the same thing here I said earlier.  I've not been in "mortal sin" for 25 years because I learned about what the love of Christ truly is and I want to do His Will.  I will not purposefully do something that does not please Him, but you deny that someone even _can_, and that denies free will.  There is a world of difference between what I _can_ do and what I _will_ do.
> 
> You call it OSAS, we call in remaining in a state of sanctifying grace.  You say one was never saved in the first place, we call that mortal sin.
> The way I see it OSAS has (at least) two problems: 1. denying the free will each of us has, and 2. that if one never had Christ's grace to begin with how could one ever hope to be saved?
> You say Jesus pursues His own; well where does that leave those that are not with Him yet?
Click to expand...


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Why must you always assume that "once saved always saved" means we can do whatever we want after we're saved? How about reading (Galatians 5:13 and 1 Peter 2:16)?



If you can't do what you want, then there is no assurance of salvation. That just seems to me the logical conclusion. 

Galatians 5:13 has nothing to do with OSAS. Read the chapter in it's entirety. It's about circumcision and the law, and what believers are called to do and be.

In addition, read 1Peter 2 in it's entirety as well. Verse 2 says *"grow into* salvation" and verse 5 *"let yourselves be built"* which implies that it's up you, your will. Wow, that looks kind of like, dare I say it, participation?



ItalianScallion said:


> So how bout the first word? "Hail". Just saying hello I guess?



Just repeating what Gabriel, an angel of the Lord, said to her. Surely, you can't be upset over reciting scripture?  



ItalianScallion said:


> Why is it necessary to repeat it 50 times? Maybe dead people hear you after the 49th time?



You would now be referring to the rosary. In that case, the prayer is background for *meditation on the mysteries of Christ*. Kind of like classical music, Gregorian chant, or white noise. Why the Hail Mary as a background for meditation? Because she was a large part of Christ's life. If it's bothersome for one, then they need not do it although meditating on the mysteries of Christ is HIGHLY encouraged and can be done other ways. The rosary itself is not binding on Catholics, nor is it worship of Mary; after all, we are meditating on the *mysteries of Christ*. 



ItalianScallion said:


> And you have no problem with the "Mother of God" line even though God has no mother or father? I'd still have a BIG problem with that prayer even if it were changed to correctly say: "mother of Jesus".



I have no problem with that. Jesus was both God and man; therefore, God does have a mother. Simple logic. :shrug: It would seem you separate Jesus' humanity from His divinity. Would you prefer Theotokos (God-bearer)?



ItalianScallion said:


> What about all those statues, shrines & masses dedicated to Mary? Pul-ease Radiant1; stop being stubborn and admit the truth! The idolatry is deafening here...God couldn't be any more upset at this whether you folks acknowledge it or not.



I suppose God is equally upset with me when I visit the Washington monument or the Lincoln memorial?



ItalianScallion said:


> Apparently you judge an entire belief system by one person's actions? Nice!
> Are you saying that she should be sinless after she gets saved? She cannot say that you're not saved because you're a Catholic but, apparently, you partially believed her.



I'm saying that she thought she was saved, then she found out she wasn't. That's how it was presented to me when I asked her, "Well, are you saved or not?" She said apparently she wasn't, for if she was, she would not have acted in the manner she did. In fact, that more or less goes along the line of Catholic theology on salvation. It requires one's participation. I'm only telling you what was presented to me. :shrug: Needless to say, although remaining a Protestant, she no longer believes in OSAS.



ItalianScallion said:


> Second, "not everyone who calls Jesus, Lord, will enter the kingdom of Heaven". I know you know that.



That's right, which is another reason why one should never erroneously think they are assured of their salvation, but continually strive to participate with God's grace.



ItalianScallion said:


> So tell me Radiant1, why did John say that there is a "real assurance of our salvation" if there isn't? (1 John 5:13, 14). John calls it "the confidence we have in Christ". Could it be that you just refuse to feel it?



John did NOT say "real assurance of our salvation", and confidence in Christ does not mean assurance of salvation. Read the chapter in its entirety. Verse 2 says *"when we love God and obey His commandments"*. What happens when one doesn't obey His commandments? Does that mean you weren't really saved to begin with? Does that mean you lose the salvation you had? Seeing how we all pretty much sin and disobey God, does that mean you never are saved? Stop reading into scripture what you want it to say. Practice exegesis not eisegesis.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> ...John did NOT say "real assurance of our salvation", and confidence in Christ does not mean assurance of salvation. Read the chapter in its entirety. Verse 2 says *"when we love God and obey His commandments"*. What happens when one doesn't obey His commandments? Does that mean you weren't really saved to begin with? Does that mean you lose the salvation you had? Seeing how we all pretty much sin and disobey God, does that mean you never are saved? Stop reading into scripture what you want it to say. Practice exegesis not eisegesis.



One is Saved through God's Promise:
(John 3:14-21)

and is assured through one's spiritual relationship with God:



> For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. *The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:* And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Romans 8:15-17)
> 
> 
> Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:26-27)
> 
> 
> But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
> For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
> Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
> for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
> And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
> *For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. *Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; (Ephesians 2:13-19)



Hmm...no mention of Mary playing any role in the "mediation" for souls. 

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Bird Dog

ItalianScallion said:


> Why must you always assume that "once saved always saved" means we can do whatever we want after we're saved? How about reading (Galatians 5:13 and 1 Peter 2:16)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The worst "thou shalt not" that I do today would be the things I say when I get behind the most ignorant drivers in the world. Other than that, I do pretty good overall. Why do you ask?


You have stated a couple of times that one of the reasons you left the Catholic Church was because of the "thou shall nots". I do not think cursing at a ignorant driver or even flipping them the bird is one of the " thou shall nots" I have ever learned in the Roman Catholic Church. I believe our " thou shall nots" were more important than that.


----------



## PsyOps

Bird Dog said:


> You have stated a couple of times that one of the reasons you left the Catholic Church was because of the "thou shall nots". I do not think cursing at a ignorant driver or even flipping them the bird is one of the " thou shall nots" I have ever learned in the Roman Catholic Church. I believe our " thou shall nots" were more important than that.


...


> Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. - Matthew 5:19-22


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> ...



What did I miss?


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> Actually I don't know that's the case. True story: A so-called friend of mine was a born-again non-denominational sort. She preached to me often that because I was Catholic I wasn't saved and she was. She was JUST SO SURE OF IT. I found out later the whole time she was stealing from me. I was told by another born-again non-denominational type that if she was stealing from me she wasn't saved after all. However, she surely thought so.
> 
> Apparently, there is no real assurance of salvation even for those who think there is.


What is confusing? Bad fruit = bad tree. Wouldn't you define consistently and willfully breaking one of the ten commandments bad fruit?

How can a good tree bear bad fruit?




> Fair enough (for now). I notice you didn't respond to my comment about your eisegesis of John.


I'm sorry, I thought Jesus was clear enough in verse 44 when He said "And I *will* raise him up on the last day."


----------



## libby

Zguy28 said:


> What is confusing? Bad fruit = bad tree. Wouldn't you define consistently and willfully breaking one of the ten commandments bad fruit?
> 
> How can a good tree bear bad fruit?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I thought Jesus was clear enough in verse 44 when He said "And I *will* raise him up on the last day."



The verb "will" is kind of like the verb "is", as in, "this 'is' My Body".  Somehow, though, you all don't see it that way.


----------



## Zguy28

libby said:


> The verb "will" is kind of like the verb "is", as in, "this 'is' My Body".  Somehow, though, you all don't see it that way.


Come on now. Do we really want to go through this again?


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> The verb "will" is kind of like the verb "is", as in, "this 'is' My Body".  Somehow, though, you all don't see it that way.



Kinda like when Jesus stated "Upon *this Rock* I will build my Church" 
(Matthew 16:18) He was referring to Himself and the *Truth* that had been revealed to Peter that Jesus was *The Christ, The Son of The Living God*

Somehow, though, the RCC doesn't see it that way! 

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: 
*and that Rock was Christ*.
(1 Corinthians 10:4)

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Zguy28

Starman3000m said:


> Kinda like when Jesus stated "Upon *this Rock* I will build my Church"
> (Matthew 16:18) He was referring to Himself and the *Truth* that had been revealed to Peter that Jesus was *The Christ, The Son of The Living God*
> 
> Somehow, though, the RCC doesn't see it that way!
> 
> And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them:
> *and that Rock was Christ*.
> (1 Corinthians 10:4)
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*


 Now, now, a lot of us Protestants see Simon as the rock referred to in that passage (that one only though). It only refers to his role in the infant church as the "senior" pastor in Jerusalem (not Rome!). We see that born out in Acts and in the fact that Jesus changed his name to Cephas meaning "rock" and that Jesus charged Peter to "feed my sheep."

And even if you don't believe that, which you obviously do not, many others believe the rock referred to in that passage is Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ and not Jesus or Peter themselves.

It is dogmatic claims like this, where none is required, that give the Roman Catholics ammunition to use against us.


----------



## Starman3000m

Zguy28 said:


> Now, now, a lot of us Protestants see Simon as the rock referred to in that passage (that one only though). It only refers to his role in the infant church as the "senior" pastor in Jerusalem (not Rome!). We see that born out in Acts and in the fact that Jesus changed his name to Cephas meaning "rock" and that Jesus charged Peter to "feed my sheep."
> 
> And even if you don't believe that, which you obviously do not, many others believe the rock referred to in that passage is Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ and not Jesus or Peter themselves.
> 
> It is dogmatic claims like this, where none is required, that give the Roman Catholics ammunition to use against us.



OK - but the Truth is that Peter is *NOT "The Rock"* which Jesus proclaimed that He was going to build His Church Upon. Nor was Peter ever given the office as first pope.  Just sayin'...


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> Do you not think you are denying free will here, though?  Seriously now, IT, all bantering aside, you've said pretty much the same thing here I said earlier. I will not purposefully do something that does not please Him, but you deny that someone even _can_, and that denies free will...


No, I am not denying free will anywhere. I actually said: when we do slip up...
I have sinned accidentally and on purpose in the past. I have free will and I can do whatever I want (with possible consequences of course). The key is that I DON'T (normally) want to, because of my committment to Christ and the strengthening of the Holy Spirit in me. As a married woman you are free to cheat on your hubby, but you don't because of your committment to him and love for him. 


			
				Libby said:
			
		

> You call it OSAS, we call in remaining in a state of sanctifying grace.  You say one was never saved in the first place, we call that mortal sin.
> The way I see it OSAS has (at least) two problems: 1. denying the free will each of us has, and 2. that if one never had Christ's grace to begin with how could one ever hope to be saved?  You say Jesus pursues His own; well where does that leave those that are not with Him yet?


Why oh why and how does OSAS deny our free will? WE made the choice to sin less by following Christ. If we wanted our freedom to do anything we wanted, we should not have signed on to His service. He and only He knows if we were serious about it. That's how He either saves us or just allows us to try it on for a short time. (Hebrews 6).

It shouldn't be this hard to see how simple OSAS is. You seem to make it difficult (for you) to believe in:
When you ask Christ into your life at some point, if you truly mean it and get saved, you'll stay that way no matter if you stray or sin, because God knows your motives (heart) and He'll keep you saved. No true believer wants to exit Christianity.  The Holy Spirit has sealed us in Christ and it feels very unnatural to stray.

On the other hand, if you're NOT truly saved (and aren't going to be) but are just trying on Christianity (Heb 6), God still knows your motivations and will not keep or drag you into it against your "free will". He will ask you to come back but He won't force you against your "free will". Just like Judas, you might have looked the part, but you really weren't "one of us" (1 John 2:19).

I really hope to see you Sunday...


Bird Dog said:


> You have stated a couple of times that one of the reasons you left the Catholic Church was because of the "thou shall nots". I do not think cursing at a ignorant driver or even flipping them the bird is one of the " thou shall nots" I have ever learned in the Roman Catholic Church. I believe our " thou shall nots" were more important than that.


The "thou shalt nots" were moreso what the nuns wouldn't let us do as opposed to the 10 Commandment "thou shalt nots". I don't cuss or flip off those drivers, it's the frustration that comes out of me and the anger that they cause me because they directly affect me. If they were on another road, there would be no problem, but (as you can imagine) THEY'RE ALL IN FRONT OF ME ALL THE TIME!!


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> If you can't do what you want, then there is no assurance of salvation. That just seems to me the logical conclusion.


Now I'm confused. Thanks! :shrug: 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Galatians 5:13 has nothing to do with OSAS. Read the chapter in it's entirety. It's about circumcision and the law, and what believers are called to do and be.
> In addition, read 1Peter 2 in it's entirety as well. Verse 2 says *"grow into* salvation" and verse 5 *"let yourselves be built"* which implies that it's up you, your will. Wow, that looks kind of like, dare I say it, participation?


Galatians 5 is about freedom in Christ. It says: 

*"But do not use your 'freedom' to indulge the sinful nature".* I think it's pretty clear that we have the freedom to sin even in Christ. The difference is forgiveness, not saved then lost, saved again then lost again. Grace is a magnificent thing! We all need it.

Uh, you've read the wrong part of Peter. 1 Peter Chapter 2 verse 16, not vs 2.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> You would now be referring to the rosary. In that case, the prayer is background for *meditation on the mysteries of Christ*. Kind of like classical music, Gregorian chant, or white noise. Why the Hail Mary as a background for meditation? Because she was a large part of Christ's life. If it's bothersome for one, then they need not do it although meditating on the mysteries of Christ is HIGHLY encouraged and can be done other ways. The rosary itself is not binding on Catholics, nor is it worship of Mary; after all, we are meditating on the *mysteries of Christ*.


:shrug: I tried.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> I have no problem with that. Jesus was both God and man; therefore, God does have a mother. Simple logic. :shrug: It would seem you separate Jesus' humanity from His divinity. Would you prefer Theotokos (God-bearer)?


So when Jesus said He doesn't know when the end of the world is, He was lying because He is God and God knows everything?

(Matthew 22:41-45) "How can Jesus be called David's Lord and yet David calls Him Lord"? Has to be 2 natures it seems to me...

How can Jesus refer to the Father as His Father and also as His equal? See?
There has to be a separation of His 2 natures or the Jews were right in killing Him but God still has NO mother.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> I suppose God is equally upset with me when I visit the Washington monument or the Lincoln memorial?


Why; Do you say the rosary there too??? 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> I'm saying that she thought she was saved, then she found out she wasn't. That's how it was presented to me when I asked her, "Well, are you saved or not?" She said apparently she wasn't, for if she was, she would not have acted in the manner she did. In fact, that more or less goes along the line of Catholic theology on salvation. It requires one's participation. I'm only telling you what was presented to me. :shrug: Needless to say, although remaining a Protestant, she no longer believes in OSAS.


Who told her she wasn't? She assumed, because she stole something, she was lost? All she had to do was confess her sins to God and continue on the right path. Sounds like she jumped the shark and assumed she was not saved at all. How sad. I hope it didn't scare her away for good...


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> John did NOT say "real assurance of our salvation", and confidence in Christ does not mean assurance of salvation. Read the chapter in its entirety. Verse 2 says *"when we love God and obey His commandments"*. What happens when one doesn't obey His commandments? Does that mean you weren't really saved to begin with? Does that mean you lose the salvation you had? Seeing how we all pretty much sin and disobey God, does that mean you never are saved? Stop reading into scripture what you want it to say. Practice exegesis not eisegesis.


Again I think you're in the wrong chapter or book. 1 John 5:13 says: 
*"I write these thing to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. This is the confidence we have in approaching God"...* 
Your statement that we cannot be assured of our salvation has no biblical basis. It couldn't be any clearer. And exe or eise, we still have God's assurance of our salvation. He wouldn't want it any other way...unless you want to introduce works into the mix?


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> OK -* but the Truth is that Peter is NOT "The Rock" *
> 
> No one says Peter is _"the Rock"._  You are insufferable.  Every Catholic would acknowledge that Christ is The Rock, just as God is The Father.  That does not change the fact that God the Son and God the Father gave Peter and Abraham, respectively, roles to play on earth.


----------



## Zguy28

Starman3000m said:


> OK - but the Truth is that Peter is *NOT "The Rock"* which Jesus proclaimed that He was going to build His Church Upon. Nor was Peter ever given the office as first pope.  Just sayin'...



And I'm just sayin' that in Matthew when Jesus said Peter was the rock He would build His church on, He meant Peter. Just because the Roman church says that means he was the first Pope doesn't make it so.

However we cannot let anything remove from us clear and contextual understanding of the text.

We know Jesus is the Rock of Ages. He is the cornerstone, the foundation of the church and the stumbling block for Jews. It doesn't negate what Jesus said.

In this case, Jesus was saying Peter was the rock because He foresaw the leadership role of Peter in the early Jerusalem church. He was the first senior pastor of Jerusalem. What does Paul say the qualifications were for an overseer (pastor/elder)?

Titus 1:9


> He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.



Isn't this the Twelve? Wasn't Peter the leader and the preacher who preached at Pentecost?

Squash these boogeymen that somehow this lends credence to Rome's claim. It doesn't.


----------



## libby

> I have sinned accidentally and on purpose in the past
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all sin accidentally.  It's the "on purpose" ones that get us into trouble.  If you knowingly and willfully cheat on your wife (assuming you're married) does that mean you were never saved?  Or, as the RCC puts it, you have committed a grave/deadly sin by knowingly and willfully turning away from God and His Precepts.  If I thought I was saved and got into a car accident on my way to the hotel to cheat, so that I never actually did cheat, am I still saved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have free will and I can do whatever I want (with possible consequences of course).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What are the consequences you speak of?




> Why oh why and how does OSAS deny our free will?
> 
> 
> 
> WE made the choice to sin less by following Christ. If we wanted our freedom to do anything we wanted, we should not have signed on to His service.
Click to expand...


I ask the same question here as I did above.  What does it mean if you do commit a big no-no?  What if you do it repeatedly, as in the cheating example?



> He and only He knows if we were serious about it.



Granted.  But that means _you _don't know.  You can be pretty sure that right now you're in His Grace, just like I am confident that I am in a state of sanctifying grace.  What I don't know is what's coming down the road in my life, and I only pray now that no temptation or pain will be so great that I fail to serve Him first.


----------



## tiger78

libby said:


> What are the consequences you speak of?
> 
> The wages of sin is death.
> In your "cheating" example, Jesus said if you look on someone with lust you have already committed the act in your heart.
> 
> 
> I ask the same question here as I did above.  What does it mean if you do commit a big no-no?  What if you do it repeatedly, as in the cheating example?
> 
> Repeatedly sinning...Romans 6:1  Shall we go on sinning so that grace may abound?  By no Means!!
> 
> 
> Granted.  But that means _you _don't know.  You can be pretty sure that right now you're in His Grace, just like I am confident that I am in a state of sanctifying grace.  What I don't know is what's coming down the road in my life, and I only pray now that no temptation or pain will be so great that I fail to serve Him first.



Once saved always saved does not mean that you can claim the Lord as your Saviour and then continue on your same path.  True repentence means that you have died to your old self and are walking in the Light.  2Peter 1:10 tell us how we CAN make our calling and election sure. Read 2Peter 1:3-11.  That is how I can know that my salvation is secure, but I must participate actively every day and do the will of my Father.


----------



## Zguy28

tiger78 said:


> Once saved always saved does not mean that you can claim the Lord as your Saviour and then continue on your same path.  True repentence means that you have died to your old self and are walking in the Light.  2Peter 1:10 tell us how we CAN make our calling and election sure. Read 2Peter 1:3-11.  That is how I can know that my salvation is secure, but I must participate actively every day and do the will of my Father.


This is why I embrace Calvinism. Once you are saved God will not let you continue on in the same way of life. He will seek you out, He will give you repentance (which is more than saying "sorry God, I promise I won't do it again."), He will mold you and shape you to be more like His Son. He predestined us and saved us to be obedient to Christ and to proclaim His marvelous light, that is the gospel - Christ crucified for our redemption - which is by faith through grace.

A Defense of Calvinism


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> What did I miss?



Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you here:



Bird Dog said:


> I do not think cursing at a ignorant driver or even flipping them the bird is one of the " thou shall nots" I have ever learned in the Roman Catholic Church. I believe our " thou shall nots" were more important than that.



I read this to mean that God isn’t concerned about whether you give someone the bird for cutting you off; that God is concerned with the bigger things.  I disagree.  The passage I provided points out that if you violate the least of God’s/Jesus’ commandments, you have violated all of them.

Unless I understood you wrong.


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you here:
> 
> 
> 
> I read this to mean that God isn’t concerned about whether you give someone the bird for cutting you off; that God is concerned with the bigger things.  I disagree.  The passage I provided points out that if you violate the least of God’s/Jesus’ commandments, you have violated all of them.
> 
> Unless I understood you wrong.



I'm not Bird Dog.  Did I say something else?  I'm totally confused.


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> What are the consequences you speak of?


You're having a time with that quote feature aren't you lady? 

Consequences vary just like punishments for children. It depends on the offense. A lie or bad word usually gets less punishment than adultery, murder or drunkenness. 

My point is this: Today I can go out and get drunk if I want to, but I don't want to. That's how God has changed me. Drunkenness was a way of life with me for 17 years straight. I enjoyed it and revelled in it from 1972-1989. With my friends, I had more fun than a hundred people did. Today, if I have a social drink, I immediately know I only want one or two. Does God punish me for one? No; but if I drink a lot and get drunk 


			
				Libby said:
			
		

> What does it mean if you do commit a big no-no?  What if you do it repeatedly, as in the cheating example?


Again, the issue is not the sin, it's salvation. That's why I've argued soo much with Radiant1 about the importance of knowing we are saved (Ephesians 4:14). With that confidence, we feel closer to God than someone who just thinks or hopes they're saved. There is no getting saved then being lost, then getting saved again. There's only forgiveness & punishment in the Bible. 

I know without a doubt that I am saved so, if I commit the "big no-no", I'll still get to Heaven. Sure I'll be disciplined by God and will feel very guilty but I'd fully expect it and cannot argue with God about it. That discipline (Hebrews 12:5-11) is what makes me a better Christian and reminds me not to do it again later. Remember those spankings with belts, sticks & coat hangars as a kid? I do! Remember what Samson did? Remember David and "let's take a Bath"-sheba? Remember their punishments? God DID forgive them but they suffered for their offense.

Now, if I claim to be a Christian but still live like an unsaved person, I have been deceived and should do what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13:5:

"Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—*unless, of course, you fail the test?* And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test. 


			
				Libby said:
			
		

> Granted.  But that means _you _don't know.  You can be pretty sure that right now you're in His Grace, just like I am confident that I am in a state of sanctifying grace.


Ultimately yes; I don't know who is truly saved in every case, but I am not totally in the dark either. God does give some people discernment and leads them to people who need salvation, so their salvation or lack thereof is pretty clear in a lot of cases. 

I can examine their actions & words (fruit). Also, I can and am called to let them know what their actions & words indicate. As time goes on, however, we get sharper discernment skills and, even though we are not judges of salvation, we can make some really accurate calls. Jesus said to.


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> I'm not Bird Dog.  Did I say something else?  I'm totally confused.



You threw me off when you replied to my post to Bird Dog.    I lost track of who replied to me.



libby said:


> What did I miss?



My point to Bird Dog is God cares about all of our sins big and small.  In fact I think the point of the passage I quoted is, if you can’t avoid the smallest of sins then how can you be expected to follow the big things.


----------



## Bird Dog

PsyOps said:


> You threw me off when you replied to my post to Bird Dog.    I lost track of who replied to me.
> 
> 
> 
> My point to Bird Dog is God cares about all of our sins big and small.  In fact I think the point of the passage I quoted is, if you can’t avoid the smallest of sins then how can you be expected to follow the big things.




We are all sinners.

Me, You, Libby, Rad, Starman, IS, Zguy, Baby and I truly beleive we are also forgiven, because we believe.


----------



## PsyOps

Bird Dog said:


> We are all sinners.
> 
> Me, You, Libby, Rad, Starman, IS, Zguy, Baby and I truly beleive we are also forgiven, because we believe.



Okay, but that wasn't your statement.  You said (my interpretation) that God doesn't care about those little sins we commit like flipping a bad driver off.  I disagree with this.

Unless, I misunderstood you.


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> We are all sinners.
> 
> Me, You, Libby, Rad, Starman, IS, Zguy, Baby and I truly beleive we are also forgiven, because we believe.



Exactly.  For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23) And that is why we are eternally thankful to Christ for His Atoning Blood that cleanses of our sins us once and for all through faith in Him. Through our repentance and trust in Him, He then creates within us to become a new, regenerated person:



> Titus, Chapter 3:
> 
> 3: For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
> 4: But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
> 5: Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
> 6: Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
> 7: That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.



And this is the Promise of being cleansed when we personally confess our sins to God:



> 1 John, Chapter 1, verses:
> 
> 5: This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
> 6: If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
> 7: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
> 8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
> 9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
> 10: If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.



How far are our sins removed?



> *Psalm 103:*
> 8: The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.
> 9: He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.
> 10: He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.
> 11: For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.
> 12: *As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.*



(ditto Paul)


> 12: And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
> 13: Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
> 14: And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
> 15: This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
> 16: Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
> 17: Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.


----------



## Bird Dog

Starman3000m said:


> Exactly.  For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23)
> 
> And this is the Promise of being cleansed when we personally confess our sins to God:
> 
> How far are our sins removed?
> 
> 
> 
> (ditto Paul)



Did you and I just agree on something Spiritual?


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> Did you and I just agree on something Spiritual?



I surely hope so Bird Dog - as long as you agree that what was posted came from God's teachings in "Sola Scriptura" lol


----------



## Zguy28

PsyOps said:


> You threw me off when you replied to my post to Bird Dog.    I lost track of who replied to me.


Easy to do in this thread.



> My point to Bird Dog is God cares about all of our sins big and small. In fact I think the point of the passage I quoted is, if you can’t avoid the smallest of sins then how can you be expected to follow the big things.


It's funny you should mention that. In a devotional this morning:

Daily Devotionals - Truth For Life


----------



## tiger78

Yesterday I posted a reply to one of libby's posts and I did not do something right.  I tried to answer her questions individually within the post and when it appeared on here it looks like the whole thing was her quote.....Sorry.

She  asked  'what consequences'?
My reply:  The wages of sin is death.  In regards to your example of cheating, Jesus said that if you look on someone with lust you have already commited the act in your heart.

She asked about repeated sinning.
My reply:  Repeatedly sinning....Romans 6:1  "Shall we go on sinning so grace may abound? By no means."

Sorry again for my posting error


----------



## Starman3000m

*There Is Only One Truth* (John 14:6)

http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholic.immaculate.conception.deception.htm


----------



## Bird Dog

Starman3000m said:


> *There Is Only One Truth* (John 14:6)
> 
> http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholic.immaculate.conception.deception.htm



I still believe you are a false prophet and have bumped this thread for your own self indulgence.


The Church of Starman ------------>coming to a stripmall near you


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> I still believe you are a false prophet and have bumped this thread for your own self indulgence.
> 
> 
> The Church of Starman ------------>coming to a stripmall near you



I haven't prophesied anything Bird Dog - so, your accusing me of being a false prophet is  a rather false accusation! 

This thread is for you and others to know about the false teachings of the RCC which has indoctrinated your beliefs to trust in Mary as being co-Redemptrix and Advocate who helps souls get into Heaven (after a short time in the RCC's "purgatory" )

The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and NOT the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.



> For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
> 
> But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
> As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)



The written words of the Holy Bible contain all the essential truths that brings a person to the Salvation Grace that God offers through the Atoning Blood of Christ and there is no mention that Mary would ever join Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," Benefactress," co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," etc.

Jesus is the resurrected Saviour of mankind; There Is Proof of that. 
There is no Biblical proof that Mary resurrected and was assumed up to Heaven. *No Proof - No Truth!* 

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Bird Dog

You and others like you, come out of the gutter proclaiming salvation. I personally think you are saved because you believe, not because you have found a special interpretation of the New Testament and believe that the Roman Catholic Church is evil.

We are not your enemy. You need to concentrate on the totally lost souls, not the ones that do not not believe just like you.
They are the ones that I am concerned with.

You find salvation in condeming the Catholic Church. I find salvation in helping those who need it most, not the evangeiicals, not anyone who believes different than me, but those who do not beleive at all.


----------



## toppick08

Bird Dog said:


> You and others like you, come out of the gutter proclaiming salvation. I personally think you are saved because you believe, not because you have found a special interpretation of the New Testament and believe that the Roman Catholic Church is evil.
> 
> We are not your enemy. You need to concentrate on the totally lost souls, not the ones that do not not believe just like you.
> They are the ones that I am concerned with.
> 
> You find salvation in condeming the Catholic Church. I find salvation in helping those who need it most, not the evangeiicals, not anyone who believes different than me, but those who do not beleive at all.





Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may. Herein all the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences. ...John Wesley......Love is the greatest commandment ever written.


----------



## hotcoffee

Let me ask you this....

Would Jesus spit your church out?

Is your church pleasing to the Lord?


----------



## Zguy28

toppick08 said:


> Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may. Herein all the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences. ...John Wesley......Love is the greatest commandment ever written.


I think though it is not that simple. Was Wesley talking about Protestants and Catholics? Or amongst Protestant denominations?

This is a difficult area to be sure, since, at a fundamental level, Protestant and Roman doctrines on things like Justification, Sanctification, Grace, and Righteousness are so radically different as to make it a different religion.


----------



## toppick08

Zguy28 said:


> I think though it is not that simple. Was Wesley talking about Protestants and Catholics? Or amongst Protestant denominations?
> 
> This is a difficult area to be sure, since, at a fundamental level, Protestant and Roman doctrines on things like Justification, Sanctification, Grace, and Righteousness are so radically different as to make it a different religion.



In the end....we will all know....just trying to make peace.....that's all....As the old saying goes....People will do what they wanna do.


----------



## PsyOps

hotcoffee said:


> Let me ask you this....
> 
> Would Jesus spit your church out?
> 
> Is your church pleasing to the Lord?



I happen to think it's about individual souls, not churches.


----------



## Starman3000m

PsyOps said:


> I happen to think it's about individual souls, not churches.



:howdy"

Hi PsyOps - Yes, individuals need to make their personal decision, however, something must be taken into consideration:

The truth is that "individual souls" need to be placing their faith and trust in the True Lord and Saviour of mankind; Jesus Christ of the New Testament Gospels and the prophesied Moshiach of Judaism. 

In the case of Christian churches where the Real New Testament Plan of Salvation through Jesus is preached, there will be (are) individuals there who attend out of "obligation" or for the social gathering to further their standing in the community but never really give their life to Christ in a true faith decision. Then, there are others who will have truly repented and accepted Christ as Lord of their life.  (God knows each individual's heart and sincerity)

*However*, souls that are attending "churches" where another gospel and another "Jesus" are being preached are being indoctrinated to place their faith in the wrong saviour and are following man's religion that claims to be "Christian"  (pseudo-Christianity).  

Thus, according to Jesus, those souls will come up to Him and mention all the good works they did in "His Name" and Jesus will say He Never Knew Them. 

One has to be placing his/her faith in the True Jesus and not "another Jesus" as taught by pseudo-Christian cults.

*There Is Only One Jesus and Only One Truth*
(John 14:6)


----------



## PsyOps

Starman3000m said:


> :howdy"
> 
> Hi PsyOps - Yes, individuals need to make their personal decision, however, something must be taken into consideration:
> 
> The truth is that "individual souls" need to be placing their faith and trust in the True Lord and Saviour of mankind; Jesus Christ of the New Testament Gospels and the prophesied Moshiach of Judaism.
> 
> In the case of Christian churches where the Real New Testament Plan of Salvation through Jesus is preached, there will be (are) individuals there who attend out of "obligation" or for the social gathering to further their standing in the community but never really give their life to Christ in a true faith decision. Then, there are others who will have truly repented and accepted Christ as Lord of their life.  (God knows each individual's heart and sincerity)
> 
> *However*, souls that are attending "churches" where another gospel and another "Jesus" are being preached are being indoctrinated to place their faith in the wrong saviour and are following man's religion that claims to be "Christian"  (pseudo-Christianity).
> 
> Thus, according to Jesus, those souls will come up to Him and mention all the good works they did in "His Name" and Jesus will say He Never Knew Them.
> 
> One has to be placing his/her faith in the True Jesus and not "another Jesus" as taught by pseudo-Christian cults.
> 
> *There Is Only One Jesus and Only One Truth*
> (John 14:6)



I’m not sure what your point is.  All you did here was expound on what I posted; except you sound like you are disagreeing with me.  Your entire post, in the end, speaks to the individual.  You will find no church being condemned to eternal damnation; only individual souls.  Churches do not accept or deny Christ; the people that attend those churches do.  The church will not be held accountable for leading people astray; the leaders (those individuals) will.

You seem adamant – although without actually coming right out and saying it – about believing Catholics are going to hell because of the practices of their church.  I’m not willing to make that leap.  As long as you can say “yes, some Catholics will make it to heaven” you cannot condemn the whole church.  It is equally as likely there are the same numbers of ‘protestants’ going to hell as there are Catholics.

In the end it is between the individual and God.


----------



## Starman3000m

PsyOps said:


> I’m not sure what your point is.  All you did here was expound on what I posted; except you sound like you are disagreeing with me.  Your entire post, in the end, speaks to the individual.  You will find no church being condemned to eternal damnation; only individual souls.  Churches do not accept or deny Christ; the people that attend those churches do.  The church will not be held accountable for leading people astray; the leaders (those individuals) will.
> 
> You seem adamant – although without actually coming right out and saying it – about believing Catholics are going to hell because of the practices of their church.  I’m not willing to make that leap.  As long as you can say “yes, some Catholics will make it to heaven” you cannot condemn the whole church.  It is equally as likely there are the same numbers of ‘protestants’ going to hell as there are Catholics.
> 
> In the end it is between the individual and God.



Yes, I am adamant in the message that in the final day an individual must have placed his/her belief in the True and Only Saviour: Jesus Christ of the New Testament accounts.  Maybe I misunderstood your original post but when you wrote "churches" I took it to mean ALL churches regardless of denomination.

What I was pointing out about "churches" is that there are many pseudo-Christian churches preaching another gospel and another "Jesus" and which are filled with souls who have been deceived in trusting the wrong "Jesus"  

Jesus' condemnation will be not only upon those who mocked, ridiculed and rejected faith in Him, but also upon those who trusted in the wrong Jesus - which means they had to have been attending a "church" that taught a false gospel.  When the Holy Spirit reveals the True Jesus to an individual, that person will leave the church where false teachings and a false "Jesus" are being proclaimed.  ItalianScallion is but one of many who has known why he had to leave the RCC just as I knew that my studies to become a Mormon were leading  me to a belief in the wrong "Jesus".

That was the point of my post.


----------



## Starman3000m

*typo/edit*



Bird Dog said:


> You and others like you, come out of the gutter proclaiming salvation. I personally think you are saved because you believe, not because you have found a special interpretation of the New Testament and believe that the Roman Catholic Church is evil.
> 
> We are not your enemy. You need to concentrate on the totally lost souls, not the ones that do not not believe just like you.
> They are the ones that I am concerned with.
> 
> You find salvation in condeming the Catholic Church. I find salvation in helping those who need it most, not the evangeiicals, not anyone who believes different than me, but those who do not beleive at all.



The teachings of the RCC Catechism do not agree 100% to the New Testament accounts of God's Plan of Salvation.  If you were to read the New Testament Accounts in the Holy Bible you would be able to see.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Bird Dog said:


> You and others like you, come out of the gutter proclaiming salvation. I personally think you are saved because you believe, not because you have found a special interpretation of the New Testament and believe that the Roman Catholic Church is evil. We are not your enemy. You need to concentrate on the totally lost souls, not the ones that do not not believe just like you. You find salvation in condeming the Catholic Church. I find salvation in helping those who need it most, not the evangeiicals, not anyone who believes different than me, but those who do not beleive at all.


Why do you say: "coming out of the gutter" and a "special interpretation of the NT"?? Why not realize that your denomination is one that is considered: "on the fence"? There are people in every Christian denomination (including non-denominational churches) that are not saved. The difference is that the RCC outwardly looks Christian but inwardly they have serious biblical contradictions. 

Who do you think Jesus was talking about here?

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 
*Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’* 
Then I will tell them plainly, *‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!*’ 

We're not saying that you're NOT saved, we're just trying to make sure you know that there is the chance of it because of some of the doctrines that you follow, which are contradictory to the Bible. Stop getting all up in arms about us "Dog". We DO care! (Now please answer my question)


----------



## PsyOps

Starman3000m said:


> Yes, I am adamant in the message that in the final day an individual must have placed his/her belief in the True and Only Saviour: Jesus Christ of the New Testament accounts.  Maybe I misunderstood your original post but when you wrote "churches" I took it to mean ALL churches regardless of denomination.
> 
> What I was pointing out about "churches" is that there are many pseudo-Christian churches preaching another gospel and another "Jesus" and which are filled with souls who have been deceived in trusting the wrong "Jesus"
> 
> Jesus' condemnation will be not only upon those who mocked, ridiculed and rejected faith in Him, but also upon those who trusted in the wrong Jesus - which means they had to have been attending a "church" that taught a false gospel.  When the Holy Spirit reveals the True Jesus to an individual, that person will leave the church where false teachings and a false "Jesus" are being proclaimed.  ItalianScallion is but one of many who has known why he had to leave the RCC just as I knew that my studies to become a Mormon were leading  me to a belief in the wrong "Jesus".
> 
> That was the point of my post.



So, it's your belief that the Catholic Church (for example) is one of those churches and those that are members of the Catholic Church are worshipping a false Jesus?


----------



## Bird Dog

ItalianScallion said:


> Why do you say: "coming out of the gutter" and a "special interpretation of the NT"??
> 
> Who do you think Jesus was talking about here?
> 
> We're not saying that you're NOT saved, we're just trying to make sure you know that there is the chance of it because of some of the doctrines that you follow, which are contradictory to the Bible. Stop getting all up in arms about us "Dog". We DO care! (Now please answer my question)



Question 1: Every Evangelical that I have met that condemns my beliefs in the Catholic Church has been a "former" drunk, womanizer, thief, etc. found Jesus  and starts condeming Catholics, who some have the same problems, but most do not.

Question 2: Not me, Libby, Rad or other followers of the Catholic Church


----------



## Starman3000m

PsyOps said:


> So, it's your belief that the Catholic Church (for example) is one of those churches and those that are members of the Catholic Church are worshipping a false Jesus?



Let me first ask you this:

1.) Does the Jesus that you believe in have His mother, Mary, assisting Him in Heaven as co-Redemptrix, Advocate, Helper, Mediatrix and reigns there as "Queen over all things" ?

2.) Does the Jesus that you believe in send souls to a spiritual half-way house (purgatory) for further cleansing of their sins before that soul is allowed to enter into Heaven?

3.) Does the Jesus that you believe in not have enough purifying power in the Atoning Blood that He shed on the cross at Calvary to cleanse your sins in the here and now and through faith in Him alone?

4.) Did the Jesus that you believe in delegate His exclusive ministry and interpretation of that ministry to just one organized church on earth that is headed up by "His earthly representative" known as the Vicar of Christ?

5.) Did the mother of the Jesus that you believe in remain a perpetual virgin after His birth - never giving birth to siblings (half-brothers/half-sisters) ?

6.) Does the Jesus that you believe in give His mother, Mary, the power to listen to prayers on His behalf and allow souls into Heaven?

7.) Does the Jesus that you believe in give authority to your preacher to have you confess your sins to him instead of God and then your preacher has the authority to proclaim your sins forgiven?

8.) Does the Jesus that you believe in instruct you to "hail" His mother a specific number of times for a specific situation?

9.) Does the Jesus that you believe in instruct you to pay daily devotions to His mother, Mary?

10.) Does the Jesus that you believe in require you to continually honor His mother, Mary, through a numerous schedule of feasts dedicated to her?

11.) Does the Jesus that you believe in proclaim you to have been "born again" if you were baptized as an infant?

12.) Does the Jesus that you believe in have His flesh and blood literally be present when you take Communion by a specially ordained minister who has been ordained to be an "official" representative of His?

*That is the Jesus of the RCC.*  Is that the Jesus that you believe in PsyOps?

Sorry, but that is *NOT* the Jesus of the New Testament accounts nor is the "RCC Jesus" the One that I have placed my faith and trust in for the Salvation of my soul.  The Holy Bible proclaims that Jesus is alive right now and is my High Priest and sole Mediator and that the Holy Spirit (not Mary) is my Helper.

So, which Jesus do you think Catholics believe in?


----------



## Bird Dog

your "Mary/mother" is something you need a shrink for.


----------



## Bird Dog

If you commit suicide now as the Muslims do you might find true redemtion. Leave us alone!"


----------



## Bird Dog

The truth is IS you have a true belief but misdirected because of some Nuns/mother figures that did you some spiritual harm.

Starman is some whackouted spiritual shaman/ false prophet that scares away anyone that might have a desire to find redemption.

Starman is the one that is possibly on the way because he condemns everyone that does not believe as he does.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Bird Dog said:


> Every Evangelical that I have met that condemns my beliefs in the Catholic Church has been a "former" drunk, womanizer, thief, etc. found Jesus  and starts condeming Catholics, who some have the same problems, but most do not.


Again, I do not condemn you; I cannot. All I can do is tell you the truth and hope that you'll examine yourself against it. 

And again, again; I'm not saying that you're not saved, I'm just challenging you to do what Paul & Peter tells ALL OF US to do: 
Make sure you are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5) and
Make sure of your calling & election the Bible way, not some church's way (2 Peter 1:10). 


Bird Dog said:


> The truth is IS you have a true belief but misdirected because of some Nuns/mother figures that did you some spiritual harm.


If they "misdirected" me then, for sure, I needed salvation afterwards right? I must honestly say that they DID teach me the truth about who God is but they did NOT teach me about being saved biblically. 

Actually the nuns loved me. They always told my parents how good a kid I was in school.


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> ...Starman is some whackouted spiritual shaman/ false prophet that scares away anyone that might have a desire to find redemption.
> 
> Starman is the one that is possibly on the way because he condemns everyone that does not believe as he does.




Um...Sorry, Bird Dog, but the Truth is that it is the papacy that condemns everyone (including all Protestants)who do not believe as the Vatican teaches. Here are just two examples: 



> *THE COUNCIL OF TRENT*
> Session VII - Celebrated on the third day of March 1547, under Pope Paul III
> 
> *Canon 3.* If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism,[11] let him be anathema.
> Under Paul III# Council of Trent-7
> ...
> 
> *In other words* the Roman Catholic church pronounces a curse of damnation to hell on all who correctly reject, based on the Bible, the idea that an infant is born again when sprinkled during their baptism. They also teach that at infant baptism one get forgiven and becomes a child of God.
> Anathema Anathemas Eternally Condemned Accursed Of God Damned




and;



> If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema. (Session 22; chapter 9, canon 3).
> 
> *So again* the Roman Catholic church condemns to hell billions who correctly reject their doctrines associated with the repeated unbloody sacrifice for sins, purgatory, etc.
> 
> If you are thinking those Catholic anathemas came 450 years ago and have no place today, remember this: The latest Roman Catholic church council, Vatican Council II, reaffirmed the Council of Trent. By reaffirming Trent they also reaffirmed well over 100 Anathemas placed on all non-Catholics, including the ones just cited!
> Anathema Anathemas Eternally Condemned Accursed Of God Damned




I do not question your sincere desire to know and want to please God, but, please examine your faith and believe in what the New Testament teaches on Salvation.  As ItalianScallion rightly stated:


			
				ItalianScallion said:
			
		

> Make sure of your calling & election the Bible way, not some church's way (2 Peter 1:10).


----------



## PsyOps

Starman3000m said:


> Let me first ask you this:
> 
> 1.) Does the Jesus that you believe in have His mother, Mary, assisting Him in Heaven as co-Redemptrix, Advocate, Helper, Mediatrix and reigns there as "Queen over all things" ?
> 
> 2.) Does the Jesus that you believe in send souls to a spiritual half-way house (purgatory) for further cleansing of their sins before that soul is allowed to enter into Heaven?
> 
> 3.) Does the Jesus that you believe in not have enough purifying power in the Atoning Blood that He shed on the cross at Calvary to cleanse your sins in the here and now and through faith in Him alone?
> 
> 4.) Did the Jesus that you believe in delegate His exclusive ministry and interpretation of that ministry to just one organized church on earth that is headed up by "His earthly representative" known as the Vicar of Christ?
> 
> 5.) Did the mother of the Jesus that you believe in remain a perpetual virgin after His birth - never giving birth to siblings (half-brothers/half-sisters) ?
> 
> 6.) Does the Jesus that you believe in give His mother, Mary, the power to listen to prayers on His behalf and allow souls into Heaven?
> 
> 7.) Does the Jesus that you believe in give authority to your preacher to have you confess your sins to him instead of God and then your preacher has the authority to proclaim your sins forgiven?
> 
> 8.) Does the Jesus that you believe in instruct you to "hail" His mother a specific number of times for a specific situation?
> 
> 9.) Does the Jesus that you believe in instruct you to pay daily devotions to His mother, Mary?
> 
> 10.) Does the Jesus that you believe in require you to continually honor His mother, Mary, through a numerous schedule of feasts dedicated to her?
> 
> 11.) Does the Jesus that you believe in proclaim you to have been "born again" if you were baptized as an infant?
> 
> 12.) Does the Jesus that you believe in have His flesh and blood literally be present when you take Communion by a specially ordained minister who has been ordained to be an "official" representative of His?
> 
> *That is the Jesus of the RCC.*  Is that the Jesus that you believe in PsyOps?
> 
> Sorry, but that is *NOT* the Jesus of the New Testament accounts nor is the "RCC Jesus" the One that I have placed my faith and trust in for the Salvation of my soul.  The Holy Bible proclaims that Jesus is alive right now and is my High Priest and sole Mediator and that the Holy Spirit (not Mary) is my Helper.
> 
> So, which Jesus do you think Catholics believe in?



I have expressed a lot of my disagreements with the practices of the RCC.  I cannot allow that to cause me to make the leap to know what's in anyone's heart and whether these practices exclude them from God's paradise.  You've made your point clear that when you see people marching in to a Catholic church you see a bunch of condemned people.  You're expressing your concerns in philosophical differences and painting a broad brush on all Catholics, while not recognizing that many may just have a far deeper commitment to Christ than you.  Mother Teresa is probably THE most hailed Catholic of the modern Catholic Church.  In my opinion she epitomized the core tenets of Christ.  Are you willing to take the leap that she worshiped the wrong Jesus?  

There are so many philosophical factions within the Christian faith: Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, various Orthodoxies, various Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, etc… Perhaps you can tells which have it right and which have it wrong.  I attended a Pentecostal church many years back.  They practiced speaking in tongues, healing, and other ‘gifts’.  I happen to think it was a bunch of hooey.  It was all false.  I watched some of these people flail their arms and rant on in church in worship to Christ, then leave in their cars at NASCAR speeds, cussing and flipping off anyone that got in their way.  Are you a member of one of these churches?  If you are, are you willing to accept that I believe their practices are false and if you do attend one of these churches your worshipping the wrong Christ?

I don’t feel this way though.  I recognize that many – if not most – have a sincere worship of Christ and are saved.  But, in the end, it’s not up to me to weed them out or paint brush all of them as condemned.  And, just as I disagree with so many practices of nearly every Christian denomination, I will say I disagree with your approach.  Your message is with a spirit of judgment and condemnation rather than love and tolerance.  But certainly not factors that would, in my opinion, make the difference between spiritual life and death.  Others might differ with me on that one.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Again, I do not condemn you; I cannot. All I can do is tell you the truth and hope that you'll examine yourself against it.
> 
> And again, again; I'm not saying that you're not saved, I'm just challenging you to do what Paul & Peter tells ALL OF US to do:
> Make sure you are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5) and
> Make sure of your calling & election the Bible way, not some church's way (2 Peter 1:10).



Starman condemns, you however have been careful not to. Nevertheless, you needn't say it for your feelings to be clear. And again, you insist that Catholics don't have the truth while we insist we do; however, you don't see Catholics attempting to cram the truth down your throat.

I can say that I test myself as well as the Church. I have read the bible extensively, and that is why I then became a Catholic. Yeah, believe it or not, scripture led me to Catholicism. I've also tested you, you've failed.

You or Starman aren't winning any converts with your crusade. If anything, you harden hearts against Christ. It's time for you both to take a long hard look at what you've been doing and stop justifying your actions, for your actions here have born absolutely nothing but putrid rotten fruit. To put it bluntly, your example of Christian "love" sucks big sour lemons.


----------



## hotcoffee

Radiant1 said:


> Starman condemns, you however have been careful not to. Nevertheless, you needn't say it for your feelings to be clear. And again, you insist that Catholics don't have the truth while we insist we do; however, *you don't see Catholics attempting to cram the truth down your throat*.



Maybe the reason for this is... that the Catholics don't _know_ the Truth....

Right now I see all seven types of churches.  I have to say, there's not a church around that seems to be telling the Truth... the whole Truth.... the Gospel....

Before you get into discussions about who's telling what version.... maybe you should go back and look at Acts again....  The Apostles had the luxury of first hand knowledge.  They had seen the Messiah, talked to Him, and they had received His instructions.  Even they had to bicker with the dynamic of people doing what they thought was right.  Sure... they might all have had the best intentions... just like the churches now all have the best intentions....

They even argued about the menu because the menu might turn people away...  today people want the argue over the sainthood of Mary... or the funneling of gospel....  or about who's church is right and who's church is wrong.  

If you ask me....  there isn't a real church anymore.  Man is building brick & mortor churches and housing them with men who do their best but have to answer to other men.  They don't understand the quicksand of their actions.  

I love my Lord Jesus Christ.  He is the Rock I build my Church on.  He lived the Gospel and He is the Reason.  

Arguing over religion is turning away people, praying to Mary is turning away people, and let's face it.... these days the collection plate is turning away people.  

So... yes... the arguments are bad.... but Mary????  come on.... the Catholic Church does put too much emphasis on Mary....  So much so that now someone wants to publish a book called the bible that takes out the immaculate conception [so they won't offend anyone].

Pretty soon they will take the original sin out.... after all....  blaming anyone could be offensive....

Would Jesus spit you out?????


----------



## Radiant1

Have you read this whole thread? If so, you wouldn't have need to re-hash the same old same old . I'm not going to thank you for attempting to cram what you view as your own personal truth down my throat. 



hotcoffee said:


> Would Jesus spit you out?????



I'm fairly confident He won't; however, I can't and won't attempt to answer that question for you on your behalf. Get the hint?


----------



## Starman3000m

PsyOps said:


> ...Mother Teresa is probably THE most hailed Catholic of the modern Catholic Church.  In my opinion she epitomized the core tenets of Christ.  Are you willing to take the leap that she worshiped the wrong Jesus?



There is no doubt that Mother Teresa was a sincere humanitarian and did many wonderful works. However, toward her final days, Mother Teresa reportedly stated that she was unsure of her salvation! 

This may be true with many in the RCC, being unsure of whether they are saved in the here and now. Thus the reason for the teaching of "purgatory" where there will be further cleansing of an individual's sins that will then allow them entrance into Heaven.

Yet, the Holy Bible proclaims that when one is saved there is no doubt about one's personal relationship with Christ in the here and now. There is a new beginning, a spiritual conversion and a new life in serving God.



> For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
> The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
> (Romans 8:15-17)


----------



## PsyOps

Starman3000m said:


> There is no doubt that Mother Teresa was a sincere humanitarian and did many wonderful works. However, toward her final days, Mother Teresa reportedly stated that she was unsure of her salvation!



I decided to read up on this a little.  I was unaware of her deep doubts.  On the surface she appears to doubt her salvation.  Without knowing the REAL context of her letters and statements about her salvation, I can’t say what was really in her heart.  I imagine she became very disillusioned that her work wasn’t yielding real results; that corruption in the world of her work was so deep that God just wasn’t reaching them, causing her to doubt.  Massive suffering causes millions to doubt the existence of God.

In the simpler regard perhaps I stand corrected about her.  But, yet again, I will not make the decision in my mind about her salvation.



Starman3000m said:


> This may be true with many in the RCC, being unsure of whether they are saved in the here and now. Thus the reason for the teaching of "purgatory" where there will be further cleansing of an individual's sins that will then allow them entrance into Heaven.



This may be true in any Christian denomination.  My question to you still remains though:  are you willing to admit some Catholics will make it to heaven, removing this paintbrush you’re holding?  Or do you really believe all members of the Catholic faith are condemned?

I will admit I have certain doubts.  I am human and falter.  Where Mother Teresa’s doubts may revolve around a world that got no better from her work, mine revolves around my continual stupidity to commit sinful acts.  God is so silent sometimes, and that silence causes me to wonder about His existence.  Not that he doesn’t exist; but that He may not exist in the way I perceive.  How will God hold me accountable for these shortcomings?  I have no idea.


----------



## Zguy28

PsyOps said:


> I decided to read up on this a little.  I was unaware of her deep doubts.  On the surface she appears to doubt her salvation.  Without knowing the REAL context of her letters and statements about her salvation, I can’t say what was really in her heart.  I imagine she became very disillusioned that her work wasn’t yielding real results; that corruption in the world of her work was so deep that God just wasn’t reaching them, causing her to doubt.  Massive suffering causes millions to doubt the existence of God.
> 
> In the simpler regard perhaps I stand corrected about her.  But, yet again, I will not make the decision in my mind about her salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true in any Christian denomination.  My question to you still remains though:  are you willing to admit some Catholics will make it to heaven, removing this paintbrush you’re holding?  Or do you really believe all members of the Catholic faith are condemned?
> 
> I will admit I have certain doubts.  I am human and falter.  Where Mother Teresa’s doubts may revolve around a world that got no better from her work, mine revolves around my continual stupidity to commit sinful acts.  God is so silent sometimes, and that silence causes me to wonder about His existence.  Not that he doesn’t exist; but that He may not exist in the way I perceive.  How will God hold me accountable for these shortcomings?  I have no idea.


It's strange how suffering causes some to doubt and others it drives them to the foot of the cross.

Ultimately the breakdown between Catholic and Protestant is the argument about imputation of Christ's righteousness (Protestant) vs. infusion (Roman Catholic).


----------



## Bird Dog

hotcoffee said:


> Maybe the reason for this is... that the Catholics don't _know_ the Truth....
> 
> 
> Would Jesus spit you out?????



You sound like Starman's or IS's future ex-wife. We have seen enough slamming of the Catholic Church.
What terrible things did you do before finding Jesus and then start bashing Catholics?

Which stripmall preacher are you hanging out with on Sundays?


Evangelicalism--------------------------->coming to a stripmall near you


----------



## tiger78

Bird Dog said:


> You sound like Starman's or IS's future ex-wife. We have seen enough slamming of the Catholic Church.
> What terrible things did you do before finding Jesus and then start bashing Catholics?
> 
> Which stripmall preacher are you hanging out with on Sundays?
> 
> 
> Evangelicalism--------------------------->coming to a stripmall near you



Seems to me like there is equal amounts of bashing going on between both sides of this discussion.  

People that may happen on this forum in search of Christianity are not getting a very pretty picture painted for them.

With that said, in my readings of the posts, I like to see documentation of scripture for whatever anyone is stating to be true.   If a statement can not be backed by scripture, I for one do not believe it is from God.

Just my opinion.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Starman condemns, you however have been careful not to. Nevertheless, you needn't say it for your feelings to be clear. And again, you insist that Catholics don't have the truth while we insist we do; however, you don't see Catholics attempting to cram the truth down your throat.


  Oh come on Radiant1! Apparently, to you, my feelings are NOT clear. I've made it clear (to those who will look) that there MANY Catholics who are truly saved. I don't "broadbrush" the entire RCC because I know some personally, so get off the Ray Charles train ok? 

And no one here has tried to "cram Catholicism down our throats"?? Can you say Bavarian, Libby (my dear friend) & YOU (my feisty friend)??? 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> I can say that I test myself as well as the Church. I have read the bible extensively, and that is why I then became a Catholic. Yeah, believe it or not, scripture led me to Catholicism. I've also tested you, you've failed.


You've tested yourself & the RCC with Scripture?? Scripture can lead anyone, anywhere if they let it... And uh, there will be a "make up" quiz next week if you're interested... 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> You or Starman aren't winning any converts with your crusade. If anything, you harden hearts against Christ. It's time for you both to take a long hard look at what you've been doing and stop justifying your actions, for your actions here have born absolutely nothing but putrid rotten fruit. To put it bluntly, your example of Christian "love" sucks big sour lemons.


Have you read where Jesus did the same thing? Care to count how many people He's turned off? So many that there will be lots of room in Heaven but did that stop Him?


hotcoffee said:


> Maybe the reason for this is... that the Catholics don't _know_ the Truth....


As I said earlier, the RCC taught me the truth about God and many other things and I'm grateful for it. They know the truth but they've let some bad "yeast" in while trying to please the masses (I mean the majority of people). Things like: Mary, the pope, confession, penance, lent, praying to the dead, etc. 


			
				hotcoffee said:
			
		

> Arguing over religion is turning away people, praying to Mary is turning away people, and let's face it.... these days the collection plate is turning away people.


Jesus made it abundantly clear that being a witness for the truth will cause people to hate us. He also said to not worry about it because they'd hate Him first AND without cause. 


Bird Dog said:


> You sound like Starman's or IS's future ex-wife. We have seen enough slamming of the Catholic Church. What terrible things did you do before finding Jesus and then start bashing Catholics?


There's a list of my sins on my website if you're interested...
Geezzz Bird Dog; In your mind, can't anyone realize the error of their ways and turn around and go after the truth? You make us sound soo evil for our past and for caring here. :shrug:


----------



## ItalianScallion

tiger78 said:


> Seems to me like there is equal amounts of bashing going on between both sides of this discussion. People that may happen on this forum in search of Christianity are not getting a very pretty picture painted for them.


So contending for the truth (witnessing) should always be nice & sweet, without any bickering? Such is NOT real life my friend. If anyone reads the Bible completely, they sometimes come to a deep hatred for our God. So maybe they shouldn't read it because He killed soo many people in the OT and spoke of eternal Hell in the NT? It's not for the faint hearted, IMO.


			
				tiger78 said:
			
		

> With that said, in my readings of the posts, I like to see documentation of scripture for whatever anyone is stating to be true. If a statement can not be backed by scripture, I for one do not believe it is from God.


Darn, the Bible doesn't say a word about cars or computers; guess they aren't from God huh? I'm being silly because you're statement is waayyy too restrictive here...


----------



## Zguy28

ItalianScallion said:


> So contending for the truth (witnessing) should always be nice & sweet, without any bickering? Such is NOT real life my friend. If anyone reads the Bible completely, they sometimes come to a deep hatred for our God. So maybe they shouldn't read it because He killed soo many people in the OT and spoke of eternal Hell in the NT? It's not for the faint hearted, IMO.
> 
> Darn, the Bible doesn't say a word about cars or computers; guess they aren't from God huh? I'm being silly because you're statement is waayyy too restrictive here...


I'm pretty sure he was speaking in the context of doctrine, not "anything" in general.


----------



## Zguy28

Bird Dog said:


> You sound like Starman's or IS's future ex-wife. We have seen enough slamming of the Catholic Church.
> What terrible things did you do before finding Jesus and then start bashing Catholics?
> 
> Which stripmall preacher are you hanging out with on Sundays?
> 
> 
> Evangelicalism--------------------------->coming to a stripmall near you


The first Beast from the ocean in Revelation (AKA anti-Christ) is the papacy.

BAM! ANOTHER NOTCH!


----------



## ItalianScallion

Zguy28 said:


> I'm pretty sure he was speaking in the context of doctrine, not "anything" in general.


Oh I'm sure, but I have to toughen him up for the forums...


----------



## hotcoffee

Bird Dog said:


> You sound like Starman's or IS's future ex-wife. We have seen enough slamming of the Catholic Church.
> What terrible things did you do before finding Jesus and then start bashing Catholics?
> 
> Which stripmall preacher are you hanging out with on Sundays?
> 
> 
> Evangelicalism--------------------------->coming to a stripmall near you




I wasn't slamming just the Catholic Church.... I was talking about the *majority of all *churches.... 

Jesus told us to go and tell everyone....  the majority of the churches are too busy getting money into the collection plates and pleasing everyone to get into the Gospel....

the Catholic Church just happens to be the worst for having to defend itself now... the Catholic nuns had great reputations in the middle ages and now the Catholic priests are getting their turn....  Face it... the Catholic Church has been tainted since inception.....Kiss a ring for absolution......  But then again... there were a lot of people in Rome who decided they knew more about the Gospel than the people who walked with Jesus....

I didn't do terrible things before finding Jesus....  I don't hold all my prayer and study for Sunday... I don't steal from my boss on Tuesday and go tho Wednesday night Bible Study....  I talk about Jesus any time I get the chance.  My great great great great great great grandfather built one of the first churches here in southern maryland.  He was a Primative Baptist Preacher.  My protestant family is from Ireland.... they came over here in the 1600's with Sir Thomas Dent.  My grandmother built a church up in Front Royal and preached there when the snow was so deep or the river was so far out of it's banks that the preacher couldn't make it.  My uncle is a Presbyterian Minister.  My father was a deacon in the church and started one in Gales Ferry Connecticut.  I've been Sunday School teacher.  I love my Lord Jesus Christ and I'm thankful that He knows me well enough to know I have a ton of flaws and He loves me anyway!  

What did you do to get hooked up defending a whole church?


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> And no one here has tried to "cram Catholicism down our throats"?? Can you say Bavarian, Libby (my dear friend) & YOU (my feisty friend)???



What's the title of this thread? 

What I see is Catholics explaining their faith when the numerous threads here ultimately turn to Catholic bashing. Not one Catholic has attempted to cram our theology down your throat with a believe-as-I-do-or-else mentality.



hotcoffee said:


> I wasn't slamming just the Catholic Church.... I was talking about the *majority of all *churches....
> 
> Jesus told us to go and tell everyone.... the majority of the churches are too busy getting money into the collection plates and pleasing everyone to get into the Gospel....



You say that and then go on to say this...



hotcoffee said:


> the Catholic Church just happens to be the worst for having to defend itself now... the Catholic nuns had great reputations in the middle ages and now the Catholic priests are getting their turn....  Face it... the Catholic Church has been tainted since inception.....Kiss a ring for absolution......  But then again... there were a lot of people in Rome who decided they knew more about the Gospel than the people who walked with Jesus....



Heh.

So, umm, what are your specific criticisms of the Baptists and Presbyterians?


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> What's the title of this thread?
> 
> What I see is Catholics explaining their faith when the numerous threads here ultimately turn to Catholic bashing. Not one Catholic has attempted to cram our theology down your throat with a believe-as-I-do-or-else mentality.
> 
> 
> 
> You say that and then go on to say this...
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.
> 
> So, umm, what are your specific criticisms of the Baptists and Presbyterians?



I was raised protastant and thought catholics were nuts. Then I started to think for myself and realized it seems to be the protastants that do the judging; I certainly don't agree with much of the teachings of the catholic church (or any Christian church for that matter) but a catholic never told me I was going to hell for my beliefs (the Vatican on the other hand.......)


----------



## tiger78

ItalianScallion said:


> So contending for the truth (witnessing) should always be nice & sweet, without any bickering? Such is NOT real life my friend. If anyone reads the Bible completely, they sometimes come to a deep hatred for our God. So maybe they shouldn't read it because He killed soo many people in the OT and spoke of eternal Hell in the NT? It's not for the faint hearted, IMO.
> 
> Darn, the Bible doesn't say a word about cars or computers; guess they aren't from God huh? I'm being silly because you're statement is waayyy too restrictive here...



No, I don't think contending for the faith is always "nice and sweet".  My comment was directed at the poster for his criticism of someone he felt was bashing catholics and then he in turn "bashed" protestants.  That is not in my opinion contending for the faith and serves no useful purpose.  And by the way I am not faint hearted...

Also, testing what someone claims to be Godly truth against what is actually written in the scriptures is by no means restrictive.  Acts 17:11 and 12 tell us how the Bereans examined the scriptures daily to see if what they were being taught was true.  It is our responsibility as children of God to study His Word.   I appreciate those who post scripture to back up what they are saying in these particular posts.  Starman does this and you have as well.  Just makes it credible when it is in agreement with God's Word. That's all I was saying.


----------



## Bird Dog

hotcoffee said:


> I wasn't slamming just the Catholic Church.... I was talking about the *majority of all *churches....
> 
> 
> What did you do to get hooked up defending a whole church?



Please spend some time reading this thread. if you do not believe that someone if not a few, have defended the  Catholic Church you do not know what you are saying. This thread has been nothing but a constant slamming of the Roman Catholic Church from the beginning from a couple of False Prophets that proclaim the only way to savation is to believe as they do.


----------



## tiger78

ItalianScallion said:


> Oh I'm sure, but I have to toughen him up for the forums...



I'm a Her,  thank you very much!


----------



## Zguy28

Bird Dog said:


> Please spend some time reading this thread. if you do not believe that someone if not a few, have defended the  Catholic Church you do not know what you are saying. This thread has been nothing but a constant slamming of the Roman Catholic Church from the beginning from a couple of False Prophets that proclaim the only way to savation is to believe as they do.


Nah, it's just the continuing of a 500 year old debate. Except we don't get burned at the stake anymore.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> What's the title of this thread?
> What I see is Catholics explaining their faith when the numerous threads here ultimately turn to Catholic bashing. Not one Catholic has attempted to cram our theology down your throat with a believe-as-I-do-or-else mentality.


I really think some of you haven't a clue as to what "bashing" really is. Just like many here don't know what "judging" really means. I don't see this thread as a hateful anything. I see it as an attempt to show people the truth. The problem is that many "can't handle the truth" but God tells us to; "rightly handle the truth" or we'll be misled...

So, am I "bashing" you if I said:
smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day would soon kill you?
eating 3 double cheeseburgers a day would eventually kill you?
walking through DC at night will someday get you killed?

Then why, since I'm only trying to possibly save a life, is it called bashing?
Did you ever wonder why Catholics don't try to evangelize folks here? 


tiger78 said:


> No, I don't think contending for the faith is always "nice and sweet".  My comment was directed at the poster for his criticism of someone he felt was bashing catholics and then he in turn "bashed" protestants.  That is not in my opinion contending for the faith and serves no useful purpose.  And by the way I am not faint hearted...


COOL! I was just concerned about how you worded your comment. 


tiger78 said:


> I'm a Her,  thank you very much!


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Then why, since I'm only trying to possibly save a life, is it called bashing?



Radical Muslims believe the same thing. They're only trying to save your life so that you believe the truth of Allah. You're no different. 

I'll continue to preach the gospel by my example and not beat people over the head with the bible and truth. That's what I've been taught to do, and I find it works far better that way. 

I think I've said it before...you've made no converts here. You've only sewn discord. Good job and congratulations; be proud of yourself.


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> Nah, it's just the continuing of a 500 year old debate. Except we don't get burned at the stake anymore.



Don't forget drawn and quartered or beheaded. 

_I die the king's faithful servant, but God's first. ~ Saint Thomas More _


----------



## PsyOps

Zguy28 said:


> Ultimately the breakdown between Catholic and Protestant is the argument about imputation of Christ's righteousness (Protestant) vs. infusion (Roman Catholic).



So, we’re down to philosophical differences on how we get closer to Christ.  Does this resolve in your mind that the practices of the RCC are false, therefore they aren’t saved?


----------



## Zguy28

PsyOps said:


> So, we’re down to philosophical differences on how we get closer to Christ.  Does this resolve in your mind that the practices of the RCC are false, therefore they aren’t saved?


I am resolved to say that infusion of righteousness is erroneous.

In my opinion, infusion adds a burden to men to preserve themselves and their justification before God. Imputation on the other hand affirms that Christ's righteousness (his entire sinless life and death) is put on us in an instant when we "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and are saved. Sanctification is the process by which we are made into the image of Christ, through obedience to Christ, in performing the good works prepared beforehand for us to do.

This is what is meant by the passages about being born-again and passing from death to life and Jesus not losing any of whom are His. Righteousness must be imputed for all of our "righteous" works are filthy rags before God, being tainted by our sins, and therefore cannot preserve salvation.


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> Don't forget drawn and quartered or beheaded.
> 
> _I die the king's faithful servant, but God's first. ~ Saint Thomas More _


I'm not sure which is worse. I used to be a firefighter and I once went into a housefire forgetting to put my Nomex hood on under my helmet and it was one of the most painful things in my life. So, its pretty bad to be burnt. But I imagine being ripped apart is just as bad. 

Truly sad how wicked and deceitful the human heart is.


----------



## PsyOps

Zguy28 said:


> I am resolved to say that infusion of righteousness is erroneous.
> 
> In my opinion, infusion adds a burden to men to preserve themselves and their justification before God. Imputation on the other hand affirms that Christ's righteousness (his entire sinless life and death) is put on us in an instant when we "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and are saved. Sanctification is the process by which we are made into the image of Christ, through obedience to Christ, in performing the good works prepared beforehand for us to do.
> 
> This is what is meant by the passages about being born-again and passing from death to life and Jesus not losing any of whom are His. Righteousness must be imputed for all of our "righteous" works are filthy rags before God, being tainted by our sins, and therefore cannot preserve salvation.



So, in your estimation, the Jesus Catholics accept is not the same Jesus the rest of us accept?

I ask these questions with an attempt at complete impartiality.  I try not to assume I know that their hearts are in the wrong place with God.  Certainly you should know by now that I have huge problems with most of the practices of the RCC.  But it is very interesting to see how fractured the Christian faith is.


----------



## Zguy28

PsyOps said:


> So, in your estimation, the Jesus Catholics accept is not the same Jesus the rest of us accept?


That depends on point of view I'd think. There is only one Jesus of Nazareth, who died for the sins of the world, because the Father loved the world.

So I think they have the right Jesus (there can't be a wrong one), but they have a wrong gospel, which is really not the gospel at all, in their doctrines.

In the words of Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul:


> "The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of using studied ambiguity in order to win over opponents. Let me be unambiguous: Without a clear understanding of _sola fide_ and the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, you do not have the gospel or gospel unity (1 Cor. 1:17; 2 Cor. 5:21)...I believe there are true and sincere Christians within the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches. But these people are Christians in spite of their church’s official doctrinal positions."





> I ask these questions with an attempt at complete impartiality.  I try not to assume I know that their hearts are in the wrong place with God.  Certainly you should know by now that I have huge problems with most of the practices of the RCC.  But it is very interesting to see how fractured the Christian faith is.


Exactly. We can't judge them personally, but their doctrine (just like our own) is open to discerning judgment.


----------



## hotcoffee

Radiant1 said:


> What's the title of this thread?
> 
> So, umm, what are your specific criticisms of the Baptists and Presbyterians?



Like I said.... it seems to me that most church groups, including the Baptists and the Presbyterians....  have gotten away from preaching the gospel and they are now spending significant service time on feel good music, passing the plate, and how to be really good little christians by dressing right, keeping the good company [no drunks or whores] and reading the Bible every single day....  All that's good, for the church, but the GOSPEL is being left out.  

Too many think you can be a good person and get into Heaven.... It's just not going to be that way....


----------



## Starman3000m

Zguy28 said:


> ...There is only one Jesus of Nazareth, who died for the sins of the world, because the Father loved the world. So I think they have the right Jesus (there can't be a wrong one), but they have a wrong gospel, which is really not the gospel at all, in their doctrines.



Um.... Actually, the Bible proclaims that there would be a *"wrong Jesus" *that would be preached.  Such teachings would be (are) convincing enough that many would (still do) believe in a "Jesus" that is not the True Jesus of The New Testament accounts as written by the first-century disciples:



> But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth *another Jesus*, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
> (2Corinthians 11:3-4)



So, Zguy28, if you really believe that the RCC has "the right Jesus" I will ask you the same questions I asked of PsyOps:

1.) Does the Jesus that you believe in have His mother, Mary, assisting Him in Heaven as co-Redemptrix, Advocate, Helper, Mediatrix and reigns there as "Queen over all things" ?

2.) Does the Jesus that you believe in send souls to a spiritual half-way house (purgatory) for further cleansing of their sins before that soul is allowed to enter into Heaven?

3.) Does the Jesus that you believe in not have enough purifying power in the Atoning Blood that He shed on the cross at Calvary to cleanse your sins in the here and now and through faith in Him alone?

4.) Did the Jesus that you believe in delegate His exclusive ministry and interpretation of that ministry to just one organized church on earth that is headed up by "His earthly representative" known as the Vicar of Christ?

5.) Did the mother of the Jesus that you believe in remain a perpetual virgin after His birth - never giving birth to siblings (half-brothers/half-sisters) ?

6.) Does the Jesus that you believe in give His mother, Mary, the power to listen to prayers on His behalf and allow souls into Heaven?

7.) Does the Jesus that you believe in give authority to your preacher to have you confess your sins to him instead of God and then your preacher has the authority to proclaim your sins forgiven?

8.) Does the Jesus that you believe in instruct you to "hail" His mother a specific number of times for a specific situation?

9.) Does the Jesus that you believe in instruct you to pay daily devotions to His mother, Mary?

10.) Does the Jesus that you believe in require you to continually honor His mother, Mary, through a numerous schedule of feasts dedicated to her?

11.) Does the Jesus that you believe in proclaim you to have been "born again" if you were baptized as an infant?

12.) Does the Jesus that you believe in have His flesh and blood literally be present when you take Communion by a specially ordained minister who has been ordained to be an "official" representative of His?

*That is the Jesus of the RCC.* Is that the Jesus that you believe is preached in The New Testament accounts?

Sorry, but that is NOT the Jesus of the New Testament accounts nor is the "RCC Jesus" the One that I have placed my faith and trust in for the Salvation of my soul. The Holy Bible proclaims that Jesus is alive right now and is my High Priest and sole Mediator and that the Holy Spirit (not Mary) is my Helper.

So, which Jesus do you think Catholics believe in?



> In the United States, Roman Catholicism hides behind a Christian mask and even claims to be evangelical. There is no such pretense in Catholic countries, where Rome long persecuted and killed evangelicals and still vigorously opposes them. In such countries there is no attempt to hide the obvious occultism, idolatry and worship of Mary.
> 
> The open paganism and idolatry involved in Roman Catholicism is a shock to American visitors to Spain, Italy, Central and South America. For example, in Brazil, Roman Catholicism is mixed with spiritism and in Haiti with voodoo. Haiti is said to be 85% Roman Catholic and 110% Voodoun. Every voodoo ceremony begins with prayers to Catholic saints.
> 
> *The Church*
> 
> Although the church teaches otherwise, many Catholics find their crucial identification with the church instead of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church like the Mormons consider theirs the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation, and that its current head is the true representative of Christ on earth through apostolic succession. The Church is the dispenser of salvation through the rituals performed by its priesthood, without which mankind would be lost in spite of all Christ has done. Like Mormonism and other cults, Roman Catholicism denies to the individual assurance of salvation through a personal relationship with Christ and insists that salvation is not "by grace through faith" but must be earned through Church membership and obedience to her many rules and regulations including alms, good deeds, Rosaries, and suffering here and in purgatory, etc.
> 
> Roman Catholicism: Another Gospel



*There Is Only One Truth* (John 14:6)


----------



## Radiant1

hotcoffee said:


> Like I said.... it seems to me that most church groups, including the Baptists and the Presbyterians....  have gotten away from preaching the gospel and they are now spending significant service time on feel good music, passing the plate, and how to be really good little christians by dressing right, keeping the good company [no drunks or whores] and reading the Bible every single day....  All that's good, for the church, but the GOSPEL is being left out.
> 
> Too many think you can be a good person and get into Heaven.... It's just not going to be that way....



I hang out with tax collectors and prostitutes. 






Starman3000m said:


> Um.... Actually, the Bible proclaims that there would be a *"wrong Jesus" *that would be preached.  Such teachings would be (are) convincing enough that many would (still do) believe in a "Jesus" that is not the True Jesus of The New Testament accounts as written by the first-century disciples:



For the sake of brevity, this:


Zguy28 said:


> You know what they say about opinions...


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Radical Muslims believe the same thing. They're only trying to save your life so that you believe the truth of Allah. You're no different.


Ohh nice! So now you're saying that my beliefs are the same as radical muslims?  (Even though their way WILL take you straight to Hell)?

And you see no difference between Allah & Jesus, such that you'd have no problem believing in both of them? 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> I'll continue to preach the gospel by my example and not beat people over the head with the bible and truth. That's what I've been taught to do, and I find it works far better that way. I think I've said it before...you've made no converts here. You've only sewn discord. Good job and congratulations; be proud of yourself.


So, if someone is on the highway to Hell, you wouldn't care to challenge or correct their thinking; just be a good girl and they'll see how awesome you are and convert?? Again  

How many converts have YOU made here by your "example"? 


PsyOps said:


> So, in your estimation, the Jesus Catholics accept is not the same Jesus the rest of us accept? I try not to assume I know that their hearts are in the wrong place with God. Certainly you should know by now that I have huge problems with most of the practices of the RCC.


We're not at all assuming they're not saved, it's because there are soo many spiritual deceptions out there today. I know; I was there. All I'm trying to do is point out the dangerous and misleading things that are being taught and hope that they "rightly handle" them. If I'm labled the "bad guy" here for doing that, so be it. I'd rather face God knowing that I've tried to do Ezekiel 3, than to face Him not having warned them at all.

From my own 18 year experience, Catholics believe (partly) in the true Jesus but they depart from Him in some areas. Where the line is, for saved or not, is hard to tell. They say Jesus is God the Son, was Virgin born, died on a cross, rose from the dead & ascended into Heaven but after that they seriously drift. 

Apparently He's not strong enough to save them completely (hence purgatory) and other RCC "helper" doctrines are needed for full salvation. He's not able to keep them saved nor assure them of their salvation so they must work for/at it. Being born again is usually done by following not Jesus alone, but also the RCC's precepts and receiving 5 of their 7 sacraments: 

Baptism (to forgive "original sin"), Confirmation (which gets you confirmed as a Catholic), Holy Eucharist (communion), doing Penance (works), "Last Rites" right before your death (which essentially is confessing your sins to a priest for the last time) and 2 others (Holy Orders & Marriage) which might not apply to everyone.

But the big lollapalooza of them all: Not fully believing the Bible. I know there are some uninformed folks out there, but the Spirit of God wouldn't let any of His people speak against the Bible as some have done here. In fact, if I wanted to be like some others who call us "Catholic bashers", I could call them Bible bashers...

For the others on here, read this carefully. I'll SHOUT so you all can hear it: STATING THE TRUTH IN LOVE IS NOT BASHING! BASHING IS CALLING YOU NAMES AND SAYING SLANDEROUS LIES ABOUT YOU & YOUR CHURCH. Can you hear me now?


----------



## Bird Dog

hotcoffee said:


> Like I said.... it seems to me that most church groups, including the Baptists and the Presbyterians....  have gotten away from preaching the gospel and they are now spending significant service time on feel good music, passing the plate, and how to be really good little christians by dressing right, keeping the good company [no drunks or whores] and reading the Bible every single day....  All that's good, for the church, but the GOSPEL is being left out.
> 
> Too many think you can be a good person and get into Heaven.... It's just not going to be that way....



One of my earlier post reflected on coming home from mass (Catholic Mass) and not seeing or hearing anything that comes even close to what some of the (New Prophets) on this thread proclaim about the Catholic Church. We do not worship pagan idols, whe do not burn people at the stake, we do not beleive that Christians who beleive differently than us are condemned to Hell.

Starman is a False Prophet
IS is a confused ex Catholic
Most Evangelicals come from the gutter, proclaim savation, then start bashing established Religions, especially the Catholic Church.

If you beleive,  you are saved, and not believing like these two does not condemn you to hell.

My next posts will be on the Outdoor Threads, as I reaaly would rather hunt and fish, than debate false prophets and confused ex-Catholics.
Sorry, Libby and Rad,
 I can no longer debate these bigoted idiots


----------



## ItalianScallion

Bird Dog said:


> One of my earlier post reflected on coming home from mass (Catholic Mass) and not seeing or hearing anything that comes even close to what some of the (New Prophets) on this thread proclaim about the Catholic Church. We do not worship pagan idols, whe do not burn people at the stake, we do not beleive that Christians who beleive differently than us are condemned to Hell.


Uh, Bird Dog, you won't always find those particular things in the mass but the mass itself is a  You seemed to have missed that...


			
				Bird Dog said:
			
		

> If you *beleive*,  you are saved...


"I" before "E" except after "C"... but anyhow; Satan believes in the true God, so is he saved? 


			
				Bird Dog said:
			
		

> ...I can no longer debate these *bigoted idiots*.


See? Now that's bashing...


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Radical Muslims believe the same thing. They're only trying to save your life so that you believe the truth of Allah. You're no different.



"Radical Muslims" (as you call them) are basing their belief on the Fundamental tenets of Islam as taught in the Qur'an, Ahadith and Sunnah. However, according to the RCC Catechism, Al'lah is the same "Creator" that Catholics believe in. 



> Catechism:
> 
> *841* The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330   http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM



Al'lah may be the same "Creator" that Catholics believe in according to the Vatican - but Al'lah is definitely *NOT* The Creator that is mentioned throughout the Holy Bible.  

The Catechism is in great error to claim that the Islamic god, Al'lah, is the same deity of the Holy Bible.  Just sayin'... Research

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Ohh nice! So now you're saying that my beliefs are the same as radical muslims?  (Even though their way WILL take you straight to Hell)?



Nice strawman you set up there. Having fun stabbing it?  

Muslims are only trying to save your life by forcing you to believe as they do. I see huge parallels between their intentions and yours.



ItalianScallion said:


> And you see no difference between Allah & Jesus, such that you'd have no problem believing in both of them?



I still believe He is the God of Abraham, I just don't happen to believe what they do about Him. I also see a difference between the God of Abraham of the Jews as well. So what? 



ItalianScallion said:


> So, if someone is on the highway to Hell, you wouldn't care to challenge or correct their thinking; just be a good girl and they'll see how awesome you are and convert?? Again



That's just it. I wouldn't purport to know who is on the "highway to hell". I don't read hearts and don't usurp God's judgment. 



ItalianScallion said:


> How many converts have YOU made here by your "example"?



None. I'm not out to convert anyone; however, there is a person who has inquired privately. He can come forward if he so chooses. 



ItalianScallion said:


> For the others on here, read this carefully. I'll SHOUT so you all can hear it: STATING THE TRUTH IN LOVE IS NOT BASHING! BASHING IS CALLING YOU NAMES AND SAYING SLANDEROUS LIES ABOUT YOU & YOUR CHURCH. Can you hear me now?



If you say it loud enough, then everyone will hear you. That, however, doesn't mean they'll believe you because your actions speak louder.


----------



## libby

> BASHING IS CALLING YOU NAMES AND SAYING SLANDEROUS LIES ABOUT YOU & YOUR CHURCH



I am having trouble remembering any specific incidents of you perpetuating falsehoods about the RCC, but there is no doubt SM does it continuously.
My biggest problem with both of you, though, is that you refuse to acknowledge that most of the Catholics here on the forum have, indeed, given Scriptural evidence for the RCC beliefs, and plenty of it.  That doesn't mean I expect you to agree with the RCC interpretation, but you should both have the humility to acknowledge that fact.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Al'lah may be the same "Creator" that Catholics believe in according to the Vatican - but Al'lah is definitely *NOT* The Creator that is mentioned throughout the Holy Bible.



By your way of thinking then the God of the Jews isn't the same God of the Christians either, but you have the OT in your bible even. I mean, you don't exactly believe in stoning people or bashing children's heads against rocks do you? Or, am I giving you too much credit?

There is absolutely no error in stating that Muslims believe in the God of Abraham, the same Creator, as Jews and Christians do. What we all believe about Him varies and therein lay the contention. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp. But then again, I am talking to you.


----------



## Zguy28

hotcoffee said:


> Like I said.... it seems to me that most church groups, including the Baptists and the Presbyterians....  have gotten away from preaching the gospel and they are now spending significant service time on feel good music, passing the plate, and how to be really good little christians by dressing right, keeping the good company [no drunks or whores] and reading the Bible every single day....  All that's good, for the church, but the GOSPEL is being left out.
> 
> Too many think you can be a good person and get into Heaven.... It's just not going to be that way....


YES!

Too much moralism and not enough Gospel!


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Nice strawman you set up there. Having fun stabbing it?
> Muslims are only trying to save your life by forcing you to believe as they do. I see huge parallels between their intentions and yours.


Yeah...

The difference though is that we have the truth, they don't. If you don't see that, you've seriously failed Christianity 101 and need to do some more studying...


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> I still believe He is the God of Abraham, I just don't happen to believe what they do about Him. I also see a difference between the God of Abraham of the Jews as well. So what?


Allah is NOT the God of Abraham by a long shot. The God of Abraham is the same God in both the OT & NT. Jesus was there in front of them and they denied that He is God the Messiah in human form. 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> That's just it. I wouldn't purport to know who is on the "highway to hell". I don't read hearts and don't usurp God's judgment. I'm not out to convert anyone...


Satan loves that one..... Jesus commanded His own to try to know (by observing their "fruit"), to contend for the faith, make disciples of all nations and, if possible, convert. I guess you like the work at home plan instead of the "Go and make disciples..." plan?


libby said:


> I am having trouble remembering any specific incidents of you perpetuating falsehoods about the RCC, but there is no doubt SM does it continuously.
> My biggest problem with both of you, though, is that you refuse to acknowledge that most of the Catholics here on the forum have, indeed, given Scriptural evidence for the RCC beliefs, and plenty of it.  That doesn't mean I expect you to agree with the RCC interpretation, but you should both have the humility to acknowledge that fact.


And right when I thought you really liked me   Hi dear Libby; I hope you're doing well; Really I do...Now back to business:
We DO acknowledge that fact. That's why we respond to it often. 


Radiant1 said:


> By your way of thinking then the God of the Jews isn't the same God of the Christians either, but you have the OT in your bible even. There is absolutely no error in stating that Muslims believe in the God of Abraham, the same Creator, as Jews and Christians do. What we all believe about Him varies and therein lay the contention. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp.


The Jewish god doesn't include Jesus, so they're not even close. 1 John said: "You can't have the Father without the Son" & vv. They believe that God is not a man and, since Jesus came as a man, He wasn't God to them. 

The God of the OT & NT is the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. That didn't change under the new covenant. Jesus name was never mentioned in the OT but He was spoken of in it numerous times. So much so that Jesus said the Jews had Moses & the Prophets writings about Him but they wouldn't believe in Him even if someone rose from the dead (which Jesus did) Luke 16 v 26-31.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> I am having trouble remembering any specific incidents of you perpetuating falsehoods about the RCC, but there is no doubt SM does it continuously.




Falsehoods, eh? OK, dear libby, I hope you realize that you have brought up a very serious charge here!

Please list the falsehoods that you claim I have made against the RCC.  Additionally, I hereby ask the basic questions related to the "Jesus" you believe in (just as I have asked of PsyOps and of Zguy28) and also please tell me which of the following the RCC does not teach:


First: Do you really believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was assumed bodily up to Heaven as the RCC teaches? 
*Please show me Bible Scripture to back this up:*

1.) *According to the RCC:* Does the Jesus that you believe in have His mother, Mary, assisting Him in Heaven as co-Redemptrix, Advocate, Helper, Mediatrix and reigns there as "Queen over all things" ?
*Please show me Bible Scripture to back this up:*


2.) Does the Jesus that you believe in send souls to a spiritual half-way house (purgatory) for further cleansing of their sins before that soul is allowed to enter into Heaven?
*Please show me Bible Scripture to back this up:*


3.) Does the Jesus that you believe in not have enough purifying power in the Atoning Blood that He shed on the cross at Calvary to cleanse your sins in the here and now and through faith in Him alone?
*Please show me Bible Scripture to back this up:*


4.) Did the Jesus that you believe in delegate His exclusive ministry and interpretation of that ministry to just one organized church on earth that is headed up by "His earthly representative" known as the Vicar of Christ?
*Please show me Bible Scripture to back this up:*


5.) Did the mother of the Jesus that you believe in remain a perpetual virgin after His birth - never giving birth to siblings (half-brothers/half-sisters) ?
*Please show me Bible Scripture to back this up:*


6.) Does the Jesus that you believe in give His mother, Mary, the power to listen to prayers on His behalf and allow souls into Heaven?
*Please show me Bible Scripture to back this up:*


7.) Does the Jesus that you believe in give authority to your preacher to have you confess your sins to him instead of God and then your preacher has the authority to proclaim your sins forgiven?
*Please show me Bible Scripture to back this up:*


8.) Does the Jesus that you believe in allow you to "hail" His mother a specific number of times for a specific situation?
*Please show me Bible Scripture to back this up:*


9.) Does the Jesus that you believe in allow you to pay daily devotions to His mother, Mary?
*Please show me Bible Scripture to back this up:*


10.) Does the Jesus that you believe in require you to continually honor His mother, Mary, through a numerous schedule of feasts dedicated to her?
*Please show me Bible Scripture to back this up:*


11.) Does the Jesus that you believe in proclaim you to have been "born again" if you were baptized as an infant?
*Please show me Bible Scripture to back this up:*


12.) Does the Jesus that you believe in have His flesh and blood literally be present when you take Communion by a specially ordained minister who has been ordained to be an "official" representative of His?
*Please show me Bible Scripture to back this up:*


----------



## Zguy28

Starman3000m said:


> Falsehoods, eh? OK, dear libby, I hope you realize that you have brought up a very serious charge here!
> 
> Please list the falsehoods that you claim I have made against the RCC.  Additionally, I hereby ask the basic questions related to the "Jesus" you believe in (just as I have asked of PsyOps and of Zguy28) and also please tell me which of the following the RCC does not teach:



You do realize after all this time that they don't hold to Sola Scriptura, right? 

Until you convince them of that, you will never win the Mary argument.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Yeah...
> 
> The difference though is that we have the truth, they don't. If you don't see that, you've seriously failed Christianity 101 and need to do some more studying...



Oh, so now it's "we" instead of you against the Catholics?  

I'm all for Christian unity, but do not lump me in with your tactics, thank you.



ItalianScallion said:


> Allah is NOT the God of Abraham by a long shot. The God of Abraham is the same God in both the OT & NT. Jesus was there in front of them and they denied that He is God the Messiah in human form.



Just an FYI: Arabic Christians call God Allah. I'll ask you like I asked Starman, you don't exactly believe in stoning people to death or bashing children's heads against rocks do you?



ItalianScallion said:


> Satan loves that one..... Jesus commanded His own to try to know (by observing their "fruit"), to contend for the faith, make disciples of all nations and, if possible, convert. I guess you like the work at home plan instead of the "Go and make disciples..." plan?



I think I've said it before, your fruit is rancid...or something to that effect. You can keep trying to justify your actions, it makes no difference to me in the end.



ItalianScallion said:


> The Jewish god doesn't include Jesus, so they're not even close. 1 John said: "You can't have the Father without the Son" & vv. They believe that God is not a man and, since Jesus came as a man, He wasn't God to them.
> 
> The God of the OT & NT is the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. That didn't change under the new covenant. Jesus name was never mentioned in the OT but He was spoken of in it numerous times. So much so that Jesus said the Jews had Moses & the Prophets writings about Him but they wouldn't believe in Him even if someone rose from the dead (which Jesus did) Luke 16 v 26-31.



So, because they, the Jews and Muslims, don't believe God is Trinity then they must not believe in the God of Abraham? It's not a matter of them believing something different about Him? Are you SURE? 

Like I said, it's not a hard concept to grasp; or in your case, admit.


----------



## toppick08

Radiant1 said:


> Oh, so now it's "we" instead of you against the Catholics?
> 
> I'm all for Christian unity, but do not lump me in with your tactics, thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Just an FYI: Arabic Christians call God Allah. I'll ask you like I asked Starman, you don't exactly believe in stoning people to death or bashing children's heads against rocks do you?
> 
> 
> 
> I think I've said it before, your fruit is rancid...or something to that effect. You can keep trying to justify your actions, it makes no difference to me in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> So, because they, the Jews and Muslims, don't believe God is Trinity then they must not believe in the God of Abraham? It's not a matter of them believing something different about Him? Are you SURE?
> 
> Like I said, it's not a hard concept to grasp; or in your case, admit.


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> YES!
> 
> Too much moralism and not enough Gospel!



Because God knows the Gospel isn't the least bit about being moral!!!


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> Because God knows the Gospel isn't the least bit about being moral!!!


The Gospel isn't a bunch of moralizing homilies that send the message to "just do better and try to follow the commands."

So what is the Gospel Radiant1?


----------



## Starman3000m

Zguy28 said:


> You do realize after all this time that they don't hold to Sola Scriptura, right?
> 
> Until you convince them of that, you will never win the Mary argument.



Yes, sadly, I do realize that. This is just a solid confirmation (no pun intended) to the fact that Catholics have been indoctrinated to believe in another gospel that was not preached by Jesus nor evangelized by the 1st century disciples.

The irony is that the RCC uses out-of-context verses from "Sola Scriptura" in order to make it's extra-Biblical teachings sound legitimate. The extra-Biblical teachings are then given more weight and validity over what the entire context of the New Testament really teaches. That's exactly what pseudo-Christian cults do!  This is not only true of the RCC, but also of Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.

Sola Scriptura is avoided by cults because Sola Scriptura exposes false teachings:

Matthew 7:13-23
Matthew 23:9-33
Mark 12:38-40
Luke 20:46-47
2 Corinthians 11:3-4
2 Corinthians 11:12-15
Galatians 1:6-9
Galatians 3:1-29
2 Peter 2:1-22


----------



## ItalianScallion

Zguy28 said:


> You do realize after all this time that they don't hold to Sola Scriptura, right? Until you convince them of that, you will never win the Mary argument.





Radiant1 said:


> Oh, so now it's "we" instead of you against the Catholics?
> I'm all for Christian unity, but do not lump me in with your tactics, thank you.


Am I the only one with the truth? :shrug: Of course it's "we". And you don't want to be "lumped in" with those of us that have the truth?  


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Just an FYI: Arabic Christians call God Allah. I'll ask you like I asked Starman, you don't exactly believe in stoning people to death or bashing children's heads against rocks do you?


Sure they do but, if they are TRUE Christians, they also know the true Jesus. Allah means God. The Muslim problem is that they don't define "God" like the Bible does; which means: Different God, different Jesus (see below). 

And no; Most folks today can get stoned without my help...


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> So, because they, the Jews and Muslims, don't believe God is Trinity then they must not believe in the God of Abraham? It's not a matter of them believing something different about Him? Are you SURE? Like I said, it's not a hard concept to grasp; or in your case, admit.


That's right! The true and only God IS Triune (3 in 1). 3 Beings, 1 God. The Muslims & Jews both deny the Deity of Jesus Christ and that means: 
No Jesus, No Father, No God of Abraham; which means No Heaven. Like YOU said, "it's not a hard concept to grasp; or in your case, admit". 

Now do you honestly think that anyone can get to Heaven today (Oprah style) without Jesus and all that He is?


----------



## libby

> That's right! The true and only God IS Triune (3 in 1). 3 Beings, 1 God. The Muslims & Jews both deny the Deity of Jesus Christ and that means:
> No Jesus, No Father, No God of Abraham; which means No Heaven



_Yet God Himself chose not to reveal this aspect of His Nature until thousands of years into salvation history.  _You and SM have the benefit of 2000 years of Christian history behind you to firm up your belief.  Thank God for that, don't be so proud of yourselves for knowing the Triune nature of God.

Zguy, are you doing a bait and switch?  You were far more "agree to disagree"  some weeks ago, and now you seem to be starting to get condescending; what's up with that? 

And SM, the very title of this thread is a malicious lie that you want to perpetuate.  Sure, to you it looks like worship, but it isn't.  We've tried to explain with Scripture and reason why Mary is important, but you won't listen.  No, I'm not wasting my time going through it all again.
My son had a "debate" in school about God some months ago.  Another student was claiming that God "killed" people in the OT, and on the surface, I suppose it looks that way to some. My son, however, argued that our lives belong to God in the first place, so therefore it is not killing to take what belongs to you.
The two of them were not coming from the same fundamental understanding of God, so the discussion was fruitless.
RCC's and SS's are not coming from the same fundamental understanding.  For Catholics, He is a loving father who wants everyone is His family to be saved, and to work together toward that end, now that the door has been opened by God Himself, becoming man, and sacrificing Himself for our sakes.  We are called to be as holy as we can possibly be, and we are held accountable for burying our gifts and/or not using them for His Divine Purpose.
You all believe Jesus saved us and cares not a whit what we do as long as we believe that.  Guess we'll all find out sooner or later, huh?
SS's see


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> _...And SM, the very title of this thread is a malicious lie that you want to perpetuate.  _


_

Please answer the first two questions that I asked:

1.) Do you really believe that Mary was assumed up to Heaven as taught by the RCC?
*If so, please show me Scripture from the Holy Bible to back this up.*

2.) Does the Jesus that you believe in have His mother, Mary, assisting Him in Heaven as co-Redemptrix, Advocate, Helper, Mediatrix and reigns there as "Queen over all things" as taught by the RCC?
*If so, please show me Scripture from the Holy Bible to back this up.*

*There Is Only One Truth*

To believe that Mary was literally "assumed," is alive and active in the redemption process alongside Jesus is a falsehood according to the context of the New Testament teachings.  Even Orthodox Judaism does not teach of a Moshiach and His mother playing a part in the redemption of mankind.

Paying religious tribute to any other person, place or thing in partnership with the Saviour of mankind is not only a form of worship but considered blasphemy and anathema.  The RCC has established Mary as being all the titles given to her pursuant to the Cathecism and papal decree. As a Catholic, it is incumbent upon you to believe it.

As I mentioned once before, Fr. Corapi, advised his audience to "turn to Mary," "direct your devotions to Mary," etc.  Additionally, the late Pope John Paul II was known for his devotions to Mary as well:




			(excerpt from JP II's address re: Catechism))

*APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION /  FIDEI DEPOSITUM*
"At the conclusion of this document presenting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I beseech the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Incarnate Word and Mother of the Church, to support with her powerful intercession the catechetical work of the entire Church on every level, at this time when she is called to a new effort of evangelization…"

Signed…Joannes Paulus II 

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Click to expand...


and this:




			(excerpt from Why he is a Saint  P. 146)

“An authentic piety, firmly rooted in the Holy Scriptures and explored theologically in depth; a Trinitarian devotion which finds its harmonious completion in Marian devotion and in the veneration of the saints.”

from, Why he is a Saint: The life and faith of Pope John Paul II and the case for canonization.by Slawomir Oder with Saverio Gaeta
		
Click to expand...



Yes, indeed, my dear libby. There is tribute, honor and devotion given to Mary by the RCC and that is a form of worship when she is also given such a high place of authority in the redemption process with the ability to allow souls into Heaven.  That is proof that the RCC is not built upon the foundation of Christ alone but upon the foundation of Jesus and Mary. 

*Without Marian theology, the RCC crumbles.* Either Mary is alive and actively engaged in all the attributes given to her by the RCC or her soul is resting in peace along with all other believers in Christ who have passed on until the day of Resurrection and when a new Heaven and a New Earth are established by God. (Revelation 21:1-27)




			Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)
		
Click to expand...


*There Is Only One Truth:* (John 14:6)_


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Please answer the first two questions that I asked:
> 
> 1.) Do you really believe that Mary was assumed up to Heaven as taught by the RCC?
> *If so, please show me Scripture from the Holy Bible to back this up.*
> 
> 2.) Does the Jesus that you believe in have His mother, Mary, assisting Him in Heaven as co-Redemptrix, Advocate, Helper, Mediatrix and reigns there as "Queen over all things" as taught by the RCC?
> *If so, please show me Scripture from the Holy Bible to back this up.*
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*
> 
> To believe that Mary was literally "assumed," is alive and active in the redemption process alongside Jesus is a falsehood according to the context of the New Testament teachings.  Even Orthodox Judaism does not teach of a Moshiach and His mother playing a part in the redemption of mankind.
> 
> Paying religious tribute to any other person, place or thing in partnership with the Saviour of mankind is not only a form of worship but considered blasphemy and anathema.  The RCC has established Mary as being all the titles given to her pursuant to the Cathecism and papal decree. As a Catholic, it is incumbent upon you to believe it.
> 
> As I mentioned once before, Fr. Corapi, advised his audience to "turn to Mary," "direct your devotions to Mary," etc.  Additionally, the late Pope John Paul II was known for his devotions to Mary as well:
> 
> 
> 
> and this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed, my dear libby. There is tribute, honor and devotion given to Mary by the RCC and that is a form of worship when she is also given such a high place of authority in the redemption process with the ability to allow souls into Heaven.  That is proof that the RCC is not built upon the foundation of Christ alone but upon the foundation of Jesus and Mary.
> 
> *Without Marian theology, the RCC crumbles.* Either Mary is alive and actively engaged in all the attributes given to her by the RCC or her soul is resting in peace along with all other believers in Christ who have passed on until the day of Resurrection and when a new Heaven and a New Earth are established by God. (Revelation 21:1-27)
> 
> 
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth:* (John 14:6)



I've tried.  I'm not trying anymore.


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> The Gospel isn't a bunch of moralizing homilies that send the message to "just do better and try to follow the commands."
> 
> So what is the Gospel Radiant1?



I'll sum that up in one word...*LOVE*.



ItalianScallion said:


>



So, if you agree with what Zguy said, why continue in the same vein (or should I say vain) you have been? Is it your wish to make Matthew 5:10-12 a reality for Catholics?



ItalianScallion said:


> Am I the only one with the truth? :shrug: Of course it's "we". And you don't want to be "lumped in" with those of us that have the truth?



Have you been comprehending what I've been saying to you, or is this another attempt at stabbing a strawman? No, I don't want to be lumped in with those of you who proclaim their own personal interpretations on scripture and cram it down everyone else's throat in a believe-as-I-do-or-else mentality. I'll say it again, there are huge parallels between your intentions and radical Muslims. *This isn't about your theology, it's about your tactics.*



ItalianScallion said:


> Sure they do but, if they are TRUE Christians, they also know the true Jesus. Allah means God. The Muslim problem is that they don't define "God" like the Bible does; which means: Different God, different Jesus (see below).



Right. They define the God of Abraham differently, as do Jews and Christians. 



ItalianScallion said:


> And no; Most folks today can get stoned without my help...



That poorly done dodge is duly noted.



ItalianScallion said:


> That's right! The true and only God IS Triune (3 in 1). 3 Beings, 1 God. The Muslims & Jews both deny the Deity of Jesus Christ and that means:
> No Jesus, No Father, No God of Abraham; which means No Heaven. Like YOU said, "it's not a hard concept to grasp; or in your case, admit".
> 
> Now do you honestly think that anyone can get to Heaven today (Oprah style) without Jesus and all that He is?



You do realize, don't you, that Abraham didn't believe in the Son of God either? 

Let me try to put my views more succinctly for you. It is by the grace of Christ that anyone can obtain heaven, however...

Jews will not go to hell simply for believing as they do theologically because God doesn't break His covenants (promises). His was a progressive revelation and they remain His people.

As for Muslims, they believe in the God of Abraham; however, they have added their supposed revelation to the Gospel (much like Mormons), in which we know was the final covenant with man. Therefore, theologically they have some serious issues and it is to be rejected, which I think you would agree, but the following still remains...

I don't read hearts and I don't dare usurp the judgment of God. 

Call that "Oprah style" if you so wish, it makes no difference to me what you call it. God is merciful AND just.

Look IS, my point here is to make you recognize that Muslims do what they do because they care and love mankind. They simply want everyone to believe the truth as they perceive it, just like you do. You are no different than they regarding the justifications for* your tactics*. I'm sorry if that's a bitter pill for you to swallow, but the reality is what it is.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> I've tried.  I'm not trying anymore.



I love you dearly, libby, but I have asked you to please show me where I have stated a falsehood against the RCC of which you have accused me of doing. Your charge is quite serious and you need to prove your claim.

Just like IS and others,  I have presented theological facts showing that the RCC is preaching another "Jesus," another "Mary," and another version of the Gospel of Salvation that  is NOT in agreement with what Jesus nor His disciples taught in the New Testament accoounts.  The Holy Bible gives all followers of Jesus Christ the right and responsibilty to warn others when they are involved or being led into false doctrines. (2 Timothy 4: 1-5)

If you are really up to facing the reality of the RCC's foundational history, I ask that you consider how Roman Catholicism began and how it led many people away from placing complete trust in Jesus as the ONLY Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) and has adulterated the True Gospel accounts as written in the New Testament:



> When Rome went from being pagan to Christian under Constantine, (312 AD) they had to find a replacement for the great mother of paganism. It was not until the time of Constantine that anyone began to look at Mary as a goddess. Since Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ, she was the most logical person to replace the pagan mother goddess. The pagans could continue their prayers and devotion to the mother goddess, only they would call her Mary. The pagans worshipped the mother as much or more than her son and this is exactly what the Roman Catholicism does. True Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped – not his mother. The fact remains that Jesus never hinted at the idea of Mary worship nor did any of the apostles.  Worshipping the mother goddess along with her child took place centuries before Jesus Christ was ever born in many different parts of the world. In 431 A.D. Mary worship became an official doctrine of the church in at the Council of Ephesus.
> 
> Source: Cult of Roman Catholicism



I hereby stand by my claim; it is up to you to prove that what I have stated is false.

The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.



> For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
> 
> But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
> As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)
> 
> The written words of the Holy Bible contain all the essential truths that brings a person to the Salvation Grace that God offers through the Atoning Blood of Christ and there is no mention that Mary would ever join Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," Benefactress," co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," etc.



Jesus is the resurrected Saviour of mankind; There Is Proof of that. 
There is no Biblical proof that Mary resurrected and was assumed up to Heaven. *No Proof - No Truth! *


----------



## libby

> I love you dearly, libby, but I have asked you to please show me where I have stated a falsehood against the RCC of which you have accused me of doing. Your charge is quite serious and you need to prove your claim.



I've tried.  I'm not trying anymore.  And _I _stand by _my _claim that you are deliberately trying to spread falsehoods about the RCC because you disagree with her theology.
Perhaps it's because her theology_ is _sound that you feel you must make stuff up, or borrow from the Jack Chick handbook of lies.

Pearls before swine, SM.  Pearls before swine.

Oh yeah, and because loving someone merely mean that you desire Heaven for them, then I love you dearly, too.


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> I'll sum that up in one word...*LOVE*.



So the sign for St. Aloysius in Leonardtown would be accurate if it said "Repent and believe the love" instead of "repent and believe the gospel"?

There is a lot more to it than that and to say otherwise is an injustice.

What is the gospel?

<object width="425" height="272"><param name="movie" value="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org//flash/tgc-video-sm.swf"></param><param name="play" value="false"></param><param name="align" value="middle"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="false"></param><param name="FlashVars" value="titlevar=What Is The Gospel? - John Piper&videosource=http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-video/piper_gospel.flv&poster=http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/media/a/posters/gospel-piper.jpg"></param><embed src="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/flash/tgc-video-sm.swf" FlashVars="titlevar=What Is The Gospel? - John Piper&videosource=http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-video/piper_gospel.flv&poster=http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/media/a/posters/gospel-piper.jpg" align="middle" menu="false"type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="272"></embed></object>


----------



## hotcoffee

I went back and read the first posts....



Zguy28 said:


> So the sign for St. Aloysius in Leonardtown would be accurate if it said "Repent and believe the love" instead of "repent and believe the gospel"?
> 
> There is a lot more to it than that and to say otherwise is an injustice.
> 
> What is the gospel?
> 
> <object width="425" height="272"><param name="movie" value="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org//flash/tgc-video-sm.swf"></param><param name="play" value="false"></param><param name="align" value="middle"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="false"></param><param name="FlashVars" value="titlevar=What Is The Gospel? - John Piper&videosource=http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-video/piper_gospel.flv&poster=http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/media/a/posters/gospel-piper.jpg"></param><embed src="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/flash/tgc-video-sm.swf" FlashVars="titlevar=What Is The Gospel? - John Piper&videosource=http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-video/piper_gospel.flv&poster=http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/media/a/posters/gospel-piper.jpg" align="middle" menu="false"type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="272"></embed></object>



Thanks for all of this....  Now....  Why does our church [I mean catholic and protestant alike] regularly preach about giving to the church, without giving equal time to spreading the word....

In the beginning, before God had to close the Garden of Eden, God use you walk with the humans He created.  Later during the period when the Arc of the Covenant was housed in the Temple, God use to dwell in the Temple.  Later still, while Moses and the tribes were wandering around for 40 years, God traveled with them.  

God wants to walk among us.... God wants to enjoy a relationship with us... 

Salvation is a Gift....  If the church was not so human centered....  more would know about the Great Commission.... 

The protestant church is guilty of making the children believe that young people can't make a decision about Christ.... when in fact Timothy himself was just a child.....  

We need to stay with the Gospel....  He inspired it....  It's written for us and has been passed down all these generations for a reason!

IMHO


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> _Yet God Himself chose not to reveal this aspect of His Nature until thousands of years into salvation history.  _You and SM have the benefit of 2000 years of Christian history behind you to firm up your belief.  Thank God for that, don't be so proud of yourselves for knowing the Triune nature of God.


Do a word study on "God" in Genesis 1. God made His Triune nature clear from the beginning. The word "Elohim" has a plural meaning. In verse 1 it says: "In the beginning God created...". The noun "God" is plural but the verb "created" is singular, to show the plurality of beings that make up the One God. 

Genesis 1v2 speaks of God and His Spirit (well there's 2 right there). Then God says: "Let US make man in OUR image..." He didn't say: let me make man in MY image (Genesis 1v26). 

Then: "let US go down & confuse their language..." (Genesis 11v7). Even Isaiah 9 spoke of the child Jesus as the "Mighty God".  There are MANY other OT references to a Triune God so you can't say that He waited thousands of years to reveal Himself. 


			
				Libby said:
			
		

> My son had a "debate" in school about God some months ago.  Another student was claiming that God "killed" people in the OT, and on the surface, I suppose it looks that way to some. My son, however, argued that our lives belong to God in the first place, so therefore it is not killing to take what belongs to you.


God did kill people back then so they would respect and fear Him. This was done as a foreshadowing of what will come at the end of time to those who reject Him.


			
				Libby said:
			
		

> RCC's and SS's are not coming from the same fundamental understanding.


And you don't see this as a problem? 


Radiant1 said:


> No, I don't want to be lumped in with those of you who proclaim their own personal interpretations on scripture and cram it down everyone else's throat in a believe-as-I-do-or-else mentality.


Again, how is it my personal interpretation? Radiant1 you are dangerously speaking against what Jesus taught. He spoke vehemently against all other opinions of God and yet you say it's wrong to have a singular view of God? Do the math on your "believe as I do or else mentality".


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> They define the God of Abraham differently, as do Jews and Christians.
> 
> You do realize, don't you, that Abraham didn't believe in the Son of God either?


And you see no problem with this first statement???   
All non Christian religions define the God of Abraham (and Jesus) differently and they will lose out on Heaven because of it. Why? Because God is NOT open to everyone's interpretation of Him. Either believe or perish (He said).

Abraham knew of Jesus because Moses & the Prophets wrote about Him (Luke 16v30, 31). Here are the Mosaic verses (Note the Messianic symbolism):

Genesis 40 v 9, 10, 11
Exodus 12 v 12, 21-23
Leviticus 16
Numbers 24 v 17
Deuteronomy 18 v 15-19

Abraham did NOT have to depend on Christ's death for his salvation because it hadn't happened; YET. He believed in the symbolic rituals of the OT that pointed to Christ in the future. It is said that: "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness".


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Jews will not go to hell simply for believing as they do theologically because God doesn't break His covenants (promises). His was a progressive revelation and they remain His people.
> As for Muslims, they believe in the God of Abraham; however, they have added their supposed revelation to the Gospel (much like Mormons), in which we know was the final covenant with man. Therefore, theologically they have some serious issues and it is to be rejected, which I think you would agree...Call that "Oprah style" if you so wish, it makes no difference to me what you call it. God is merciful AND just.


OMG you believe just like Oprah! You have just made Jesus out to be a tremendous liar because He said the exact opposite to the Jews. They WILL go to Hell for their unbelief (John 8v 31-59). Today the point is: belief in Jesus. Wrong Jesus, wrong God, no salvation. Muslims, too, will not get there with their present beliefs...


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Look IS, my point here is to make you recognize that Muslims do what they do because they care and love mankind. They simply want everyone to believe the truth as they perceive it, just like you do. You are no different than they regarding the justifications for* your tactics*. I'm sorry if that's a bitter pill for you to swallow, but the reality is what it is.


WHERE'S YOUR HEAD BEEN ALL THESE YEARS RADIANT1? Muslims are the end times, anti God, one world religion of Rev 13. Read it! 

The truth "as they believe it" is a satanic LIE! Muslims DO NOT love mankind!! They are the devil's children  You statements are demonic at best and cannot be reconciled with God's Word. 
God help us!! It's all coming true...


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> The truth "as they believe it" is a satanic LIE! Muslims DO NOT love mankind!! They are the devil's children



That's one heck of a blanket statement. If you believe that, then stop acting like them.


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> That's one heck of a blanket statement. If you believe that, then stop acting like them.



Do you believe it?

As a whole, the Islamic religion, in its present  state, oppresses women, inflicts brutal penalties when Sharia is violated, views anyone not Muslim as the infidel, and must be converted or deserves death.  I have stated this before –- I spent some considerable time in Saudi Arabia and got to see, first hand, what this religion is really about.  They are a dictatorial and oppressive religion.  There is no freedom under Sharia.  It's their way or die.  And this is not a spiritual death.  Their goal is to establish a global Caliphate, in which everyone is Muslim and those who refuse are rejected and destroyed.

This is really the core of their faith; to spread globally through force and intimidation.  The reason we are facing the problem with this religion today is because we have so many that refuse to accept this fact in the better interest of political and ideological correctness.  We fear angering and offending them; while they don't care who they offend or anger.  If you refuse to recognize this as a problem then be prepared to convert or face a certain demise.  

I don't really see any Christian in this forum demanding such ideals.


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> Do you believe it?
> 
> As a whole, the Islamic religion, in its present  state, oppresses women, inflicts brutal penalties when Sharia is violated, views anyone not Muslim as the infidel, and *must be converted or deserves death*.  I have stated this before –- I spent some considerable time in Saudi Arabia and got to see, first hand, what this religion is really about.  They are a dictatorial and oppressive religion.  There is no freedom under Sharia.  It's their way or die.  And this is not a spiritual death.  Their goal is to establish a global Caliphate, in which everyone is Muslim and those who refuse are rejected and destroyed.
> 
> This is really the core of their faith; to spread globally through force and intimidation.  The reason we are facing the problem with this religion today is because we have so many that refuse to accept this fact in the better interest of political and ideological correctness.  We fear angering and offending them; while they don't care who they offend or anger.  If you refuse to recognize this as a problem then be prepared to convert or face a certain demise.
> 
> I don't really any Christian in this forum demanding such ideals.



What I believe about Islamic theology or people is irrelevent. The whole point is that they view their religion as the truth, and IS views his version of Christianity as the truth. Both want to tell me I'm in error and cram their truth down my throat with a threat. Whether that threat be a physical death or eternal damnation doesn't much matter.


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> What I believe about Islamic theology or people is irrelevent. The whole point is that they view their religion as the truth, and IS views his version of Christianity as the truth. Both want to tell me I'm in error and cram their truth down my throat with a threat. Whether that threat be a physical death or eternal damnation doesn't much matter.



I've read a lot of your posts and I am amazed that someone with your intelligence can't see the difference between:

"If you don’t believe, my God says you’re going to hell."

and...

"If you don’t believe we will come after you and kill you and your family and everyone else that refuses to believe."

With the first, you have a personal choice and you either receive the gift of eternal life or you don’t.  There is no threat of physical harm to you.

With the latter, not only will you not go to heaven but you will also receive physical harm; in other words you are forced to believe by other people.  There is no demand from IS, through physical harm, for you to convert.  He is only bringing you the message.

So again, the question is quite relevant regarding the difference in approaches.  IS is only telling you what’s in the bible and the spiritual consequences of your decisions.  Muslims not only tell you what’s in the Koran, they accompany that with physical threats and demands that you convert or else – by their own hands.  A very relevant and stark difference.


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> I've read a lot of your posts and I am amazed that someone with your intelligence can't see the difference between:
> 
> "If you don’t believe, my God says you’re going to hell."
> 
> and...
> 
> "If you don’t believe we will come after you and kill you and your family and everyone else that refuses to believe."
> 
> With the first, you have a personal choice and you either receive the gift of eternal life or you don’t.  There is no threat of physical harm to you.
> 
> With the latter, not only will you not go to heaven but you will also receive physical harm; in other words you are forced to believe by other people.  There is no demand from IS, through physical harm, for you to convert.  He is only bringing you the message.
> 
> So again, the question is quite relevant regarding the difference in approaches.  IS is only telling you what’s in the bible and the spiritual consequences of your decisions.  Muslims not only tell you what’s in the Koran, they accompany that with physical threats and demands that you convert or else – by their own hands.  A very relevant and stark difference.



Yeah, spiritual death is a bigger death than physical death.


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> Yeah, spiritual death is a bigger death than physical death.



Of course it is.  Are you telling me you don't see the difference between how radical Christians handle their message vs. radical Muslims?


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> I've read a lot of your posts and I am amazed that someone with your intelligence can't see the difference between:
> 
> "If you don’t believe, my God says you’re going to hell."
> 
> and...
> 
> "If you don’t believe we will come after you and kill you and your family and everyone else that refuses to believe."



I see absolutely no difference between their intentions. Both insist they are correct and use fear tactics (persecution/eternal damnation) in an attempt to make others believe as they do. And, they both believe they are doing a good work with their "jihad". I call it how I see it. :shrug:

As libby pointed out, spiritual death is worse than physical death. The majority of Muslims don't believe in eternal damnation but a temporary hell (purgation). Therefore, even though the Muslims might want to kill me for not believing as they do, the end result is kinder than offered by IS, my own supposed brother in Christ who would have me burn eternally for not believing exactly as he does. <-----That fact would be funny if it were not so damn sad.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> As libby pointed out, spiritual death is worse than physical death. The majority of Muslims don't believe in eternal damnation but a temporary hell (purgation).



You do see the similarity between the Islamic "purgation" and "purgatory" don't you? Muslims believe that there is a "spiritual half-way house" where the souls of Muslims go to get "cleaned up" prior to entry into the Islamic paradise.


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> I see absolutely no difference between their intentions. Both insist they are correct and use fear tactics (persecution/eternal damnation) in an attempt to make others believe as they do. And, they both believe they are doing a good work with their "jihad". I call it how I see it. :shrug:
> 
> As libby pointed out, spiritual death is worse than physical death. The majority of Muslims don't believe in eternal damnation but a temporary hell (purgation). Therefore, even though the Muslims might want to kill me for not believing as they do, the end result is kinder than offered by IS, my own supposed brother in Christ who would have me burn eternally for not believing exactly as he does. <-----That fact would be funny if it were not so damn sad.



I see, so if I simply tell you “if you don’t believe this, that will happen” and I’m rather adamant – maybe even zealous – about it; you see no difference between that and someone that tells you “if you don’t believe the way I do I am going to kill you”?  Is there any truth to what IS is preaching?  Do you believe that if you don’t accept Christ as your savior you are doomed to eternal damnation?  Or do you believe that we all are saved anyway (the JPC doctrine)?

You know this whole “force religion down our throats” mentality is nothing more than an excuse to shut people you disagree with up.  Through just my voice I have no power to force anything on you that you aren’t willing to allow.  However, if I use physical and lethal threats of violence against you, most certainly I have a level of definite influence over you.  That is, unless you are prepared to die in this physical world.

I don’t understand how you conclude this is a kinder result.  Suppose someone who isn’t saved is killed at the hands of a Muslim for not believing in Islam, before they get a chance to accept Christ?  A life was taken at the hands of someone else for not believing their way, and deprived them of the opportunity to accept Christ.

No Christian would have you burn anywhere for not believing exactly as they do.  What they believe, God made those rules.  Do I agree with IS’s approach?  Not necessarily.  Do I believe he is capable of forcing his beliefs down your throat; you’ve made it clear that this is not possible.  Does what IS say bother the heck out of you? Most definitely!  As compared to fundamental Islam, how is IS just as dangerous?  IS desires for you to be saved.  He prefers to discuss with you.  Even though his tone and rhetoric are offensive to you, he has no desire to take your life for not believe what he believes.  Radical Muslims don't want to have a discussion.  It's 'convert or die'.  Like I mentioned before, go to a coutry like Saudi Arabia and you'll learn this lesson very quickly.


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> Of course it is.  Are you telling me you don't see the difference between how radical Christians handle their message vs. radical Muslims?



If the west was not secular and the radical Protestants were in power, they would treat Catholics the same as radical Muslims do in Islamic nations.  They've done absolutely nothing to make me think differently.



Starman3000m said:


> You do see the similarity between the Islamic "purgation" and "purgatory" don't you? Muslims believe that there is a "spiritual half-way house" where the souls of Muslims go to get "cleaned up" prior to entry into the Islamic paradise.



Do you think because it is Islam that it has EVERYTHING wrong? Are you so blinded by bigotry that you cannot find partial truth where it resides? Do you not realize that Christianity had some influence on Islam during it's development?

And you say Catholics have been indoctrinated.


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> If the west was not secular and the radical Protestants were in power, they would treat Catholics the same as radical Muslims do in Islamic nations.  They've done absolutely nothing to make me think differently.


Oh the irony....


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> If the west was not secular and the radical Protestants were in power, they would treat Catholics the same as radical Muslims do in Islamic nations.  They've done absolutely nothing to make me think differently.



If wishes were fishes... Have you considered why we are a secular nation and these "radical Protestants" don't have this sort of power?  It's because they don't have a desire to FORCE anyone to believe the way they believe.  Protestants, as well as Catholics, in this country only wish to spread the Gospel as they believe it.

Given your 'if' doesn't exist, there's no way to prove your theory.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> If the west was not secular and the radical Protestants were in power, they would treat Catholics the same as radical Muslims do in Islamic nations.  They've done absolutely nothing to make me think differently.



*Not True. * However, what you are saying was true of how Roman Catholics treated Jews, Muslims, Protestants, and all other non-Catholics during the Inquisition periods - with the Vatican's "blessings."
Accept papal authority - or else!



> Do you think because it is Islam that it has EVERYTHING wrong? Are you so blinded by bigotry that you cannot find partial truth where it resides? Do you not realize that Christianity had some influence on Islam during it's development?
> 
> And you say Catholics have been indoctrinated.



The only thing that Islam has included from Christianity is the names of the prophets, Jesus, Mary and their defined monotheism of belief in Al'lah as the true "god."

Even then, all the persons of Biblical accounts were true Muslims, according to Islamic theology, and are counterfeit personalities that are totally different than Biblical accounts.

Other than that, Muhammad's lifestyle and call for advancing Islam is in no way similar to what the New Testament teachings of Christ and His disciples taught in regard to evangelization.  The Great Commission through Christ is to proclaim Salvation through Him alone and not by force by putting away the physical sword.  Muhammad's command was to invite mankind to accept Islam and put the sword to all who do not accept Allah and him as being the "last and final prophet of mankind."

Fundamental Muslims are just going by "the book" (Qur'an) and Muhammad's commands in their attempt to bring this world to submission to the Islamic ideology and Sharia' Law.  It is their duty and obligation to assist this endeavor in all ways possible to dominate the world with Islam. Martyrs are "guaranteed paradise" according to islamic theology, thus, the reason why so many Muslims are ready and willing to die for their faith through suicide bombings that take out scores of non-Muslims.

Research


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> I see, so if I simply tell you “if you don’t believe this, that will happen” and I’m rather adamant – maybe even zealous – about it; you see no difference between that and someone that tells you “if you don’t believe the way I do I am going to kill you”?



Again, their intentions are the same...to make me believe as they do with a threat if I don't. The means don't matter.



PsyOps said:


> Is there any truth to what IS is preaching?



When he strongly implies that Catholics will go to hell simply because they are Catholic and that according to him we worship in error and therefore are not even Christian, then there is no truth in what he (or Starman or Zguy) says.



PsyOps said:


> Do you believe that if you don’t accept Christ as your savior you are doomed to eternal damnation?



I believe that there are those to no fault of their own who have never heard of Christ our Lord. I do not think those people will necessarily go to hell because of a choice they were _never able to make_.



PsyOps said:


> Or do you believe that we all are saved anyway (the JPC doctrine)?



No. I certainly do think some people will go to hell. I just happen to not be able to say who that is because I don't usurp the judgment of God, unlike others here on this forum. :ahem:



PsyOps said:


> You know this whole “force religion down our throats” mentality is nothing more than an excuse to shut people you disagree with up.  Through just my voice I have no power to force anything on you that you aren’t willing to allow.  However, if I use physical and lethal threats of violence against you, most certainly I have a level of definite influence over you.  That is, unless you are prepared to die in this physical world.



As I said, I see the parallels.

I live in the physical world, of course I'm prepared to die in it. If I die a martyr, then it would be an unasked for blessing.



PsyOps said:


> I don’t understand how you conclude this is a kinder result.  Suppose someone who isn’t saved is killed at the hands of a Muslim for not believing in Islam, before they get a chance to accept Christ?  A life was taken at the hands of someone else for not believing their way, and deprived them of the opportunity to accept Christ.



See above. 



PsyOps said:


> No Christian would have you burn anywhere for not believing exactly as they do.  What they believe, God made those rules.



That's how you and IS interpret God's Word. I disagree with your view. I don't think it so cut and dry. Again, see above.



PsyOps said:


> Do I agree with IS’s approach?  Not necessarily.  Do I believe he is capable of forcing his beliefs down your throat; you’ve made it clear that this is not possible.  Does what IS say bother the heck out of you? Most definitely!  As compared to fundamental Islam, how is IS just as dangerous?  IS desires for you to be saved.  He prefers to discuss with you.  Even though his tone and rhetoric are offensive to you, he has no desire to take your life for not believe what he believes.  Radical Muslims don't want to have a discussion.  It's 'convert or die'.  Like I mentioned before, go to a coutry like Saudi Arabia and you'll learn this lesson very quickly.



You're right. IS can shove scripture as he interprets it down my throat all day long and it won't make a difference in what I believe and why. A Muslim could threaten to kill me and it would make no difference either; I'd die for my faith in Christ. The intentions of both, however, remain the same. It doesn't matter if you agree with me, psy. I call it how I see it.


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> Oh the irony....



It is ironic, isn't it? Here's more for ya. King Henry VIII was no better than his daughter Bloody Mary. Witches were put to death in the colonies by Puritans. The colony of Maryland was founded for religious freedom by a Catholic whose government was taken by hostile means by Virginian Protestants who then outlawed the Catholic Mass. 

Don't laugh so hard Zguy, no side of that mess was innocent. Thank God for the Deists and our constitution, yes? 



PsyOps said:


> If wishes were fishes... Have you considered why we are a secular nation and these "radical Protestants" don't have this sort of power?  It's because they don't have a desire to FORCE anyone to believe the way they believe.  Protestants, as well as Catholics, in this country only wish to spread the Gospel as they believe it.
> 
> Given your 'if' doesn't exist, there's no way to prove your theory.



You're right, there's no way to prove my "if". However, as I said, I've been given no reason to believe differently. In addition, read my quick history lesson to Zguy above.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> *Not True. * However, what you are saying was true of how Roman Catholics treated Jews, Muslims, Protestants, and all other non-Catholics during the Inquisition periods - with the Vatican's "blessings."
> Accept papal authority - or else!



*You especially *have given me no reason to believe differently.

Maybe you need a history lesson too. Neither Catholic or Protestant were innocent in those days. Aren't you glad that the time and culture has changed? Let's make sure it stays that way, eh? 

I don't need your education on Islam, as I've studied it. I'm not Muslim, I'm a Christian.


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> You're right. IS can shove scripture as he interprets it down my throat all day long and it won't make a difference in what I believe and why. A Muslim could threaten to kill me and it would make no difference either; I'd die for my faith in Christ. The intentions of both, however, remain the same. It doesn't matter if you agree with me, psy. I call it how I see it.



I wont reply to your whole post since we’re just going in circles.  But to this, I will simply repeat that I am just trying to point out the stark differences between how radical Islam would convert you and have you live.  For them to live is to be Muslim, any other way is death at their hands, in a most brutal way.  To live as a Muslim is to live under a tyrannical and brutal thumb called Shariah.  No freedoms, no choices, especially for women – a life of slavery and oppression.  There is no such desire or mandate in the Christian world.  You don’t have entire nations FORCED to adhere to the Christian religion.  You don’t have the Christian police running around enforcing Christian law.  You don’t have Christians committing suicide bombings and hijacking passenger planes in order to inflict fear on large populations to get them to comply with their faith.  I don’t hear Z, IS, or Star promoting anything of the sort.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> What I believe about Islamic theology or people is irrelevent. The whole point is that they view their religion as the truth, and IS views his version of Christianity as the truth. Both want to tell me I'm in error and cram their truth down my throat with a threat.


And YOU view their religion as truth also? You sure don't argue against it like you do Christianity. I now see why you were duped into Catholicism. Your pride won't allow you to accept the truth. MUSLIMS DON'T HAVE THE TRUTH! This crap about "they view their religion as the truth" is true but they're still wrong; dead wrong!

You need to open your heart & mind up to God and let Him show you that you are seriously mistaken and need to get back on course. That's why I called it "Oprah" theology. You are NOT following Jesus' teachings, you are contradicting them. He spent most of His time on earth contradicting those types of lies.


Radiant1 said:


> The majority of Muslims don't believe in eternal damnation but a temporary hell (purgation). Therefore, even though the Muslims might want to kill me for not believing as they do, the end result is kinder than offered by IS, my own supposed brother in Christ who would have me burn eternally for not believing exactly as he does.


We agree there my sweets. Muslim (physical death) is way more better than IS (spiritual death), but why do you care what Muslims believe, since they're wrong? 





PsyOps said:


> You know this whole “force religion down our throats” mentality is nothing more than an excuse to shut people you disagree with up.  Through just my voice I have no power to force anything on you that you aren’t willing to allow. Does what IS say bother the heck out of you? Most definitely!  As compared to fundamental Islam, how is IS just as dangerous?


  She won't listen even though God is really trying to break into her hard head right about now...


			
				PsyOps said:
			
		

> IS desires for you to be saved.  He prefers to discuss with you.  Even though his tone and rhetoric are offensive to you, he has no desire to take your life for not believe what he believes.


I would do ANYTHING for her to help her find the truth... If she met me in person, she would see that there is nothing but concern & love in my intentions. She can ask Libby if I came off as arrogant when she met me at RR. 


Radiant1 said:


> When he strongly implies that Catholics will go to hell simply because they are Catholic and that according to him we worship in error and therefore are not even Christian, then there is no truth in what he (or Starman or Zguy) says.


I never said that little lady   I've said that I'm very concerned for the Catholics because I've had firsthand experience. I've even defended them in a few posts...


----------



## Starman3000m

PsyOps said:


> I wont reply to your whole post since we’re just going in circles.  But to this, I will simply repeat that I am just trying to point out the stark differences between how radical Islam would convert you and have you live.  For them to live is to be Muslim, any other way is death at their hands, in a most brutal way.  To live as a Muslim is to live under a tyrannical and brutal thumb called Shariah.  No freedoms, no choices, especially for women – a life of slavery and oppression.  There is no such desire or mandate in the Christian world.  You don’t have entire nations FORCED to adhere to the Christian religion.  You don’t have the Christian police running around enforcing Christian law.  You don’t have Christians committing suicide bombings and hijacking passenger planes in order to inflict fear on large populations to get them to comply with their faith.  I don’t hear Z, IS, or Star promoting anything of the sort.





Also: What most people here cannot comprehend AND/OR do not realize is that the Mujahideen, are "soldiers in the faith of Al'lah".  The Muslim world views these groups as "freedom fighters" for Islam and they are committed wholeheartedly in their efforts to overthrow and dominate Western/secular societies.

All Jihadist groups comprise the active "standing army" of the Islamic world.  Contrary to the "politically correct view" that most Americans have, these "terror groups" are not "radical" but are obligated to fight for the faith they believe in with all manner of abilities and opportunities they can find - yes, including suicide bombings. Martyrdom is viewed as the highest achievement a Muslim can undertake and, according to Muhammad's teachings, to be killed fighting for the cause of Islam is a "guarantee" that the Muslim will be be granted immediate entry into the Islamic paradise along with 70 of their family members.  Any wonder why Muslim mothers are proud to have their sons and daughters become suicide bombers and why the pictures of the "martyrs" are posted proudly throughout the Middle East?

America has given the Islamic ideology a pass through political correctness and denial - believing that Muslims don't have an ulterior motive for being here. The fact is that the Islamic world has a definite plan and they are carrying it out effectively while our politicians allow them to come right in and set up shop within our communities.

Research

Yeah, I know, I know...  but, since it was being discussed...


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> And YOU view their religion as truth also? You sure don't argue against it like you do Christianity. I now see why you were duped into Catholicism. Your pride won't allow you to accept the truth. MUSLIMS DON'T HAVE THE TRUTH! This crap about "they view their religion as the truth" is true but they're still wrong; dead wrong!



^^ This is the crap I'm talking about.

Not once have I argued against Christianity, I've only defended my faith because I had to against someone who also proclaims belief in Christ (amazingly sad that I should have to do so isn't it). I said Muslims have partial truth, not fullness of truth. For that matter, it's the same with you with your Sola Scriptura personal interpretation jive. We've been over that tons of times before. The difference is I don't cram what I perceive to be the truth down your throat and insist you believe as I do or you will go to hell. Nor do I make nearly every religious thread into a Protestant bash fest. 

I have no problem whatsoever taking what we are unified on and running with it. Can we do that from here on out, IS? Or, will you continually fracture and break the Body of Christ?



ItalianScallion said:


> You need to open your heart & mind up to God and let Him show you that you are seriously mistaken and need to get back on course. That's why I called it "Oprah" theology. You are NOT following Jesus' teachings, you are contradicting them. He spent most of His time on earth contradicting those types of lies.



See above drama king. And, again for brevity's sake:





Zguy28 said:


> You know what they say about opinions...



Umm hmmm, we know. 



ItalianScallion said:


> We agree there my sweets. Muslim (physical death) is way more better than IS (spiritual death), but why do you care what Muslims believe, since they're wrong?



The only thing I care about is that you, Starman, etc imply or flat out state Catholics are going to go to hell because they don't believe exactly as you do. I pointed out that to do so, your tactic, is no different than radical Muslims, for their intentions are the same as yours. Again, this isn't about Muslim theology, their truth or lack of it, as much as you want to make it so.



ItalianScallion said:


> She won't listen even though God is really trying to break into her hard head right about now...
> 
> I would do ANYTHING for her to help her find the truth... If she met me in person, she would see that there is nothing but concern & love in my intentions. She can ask Libby if I came off as arrogant when she met me at RR.



That's just it. I've found Truth, thank you. I grew up a Protestant and have since rejected that brand of Christianity, remember? 

You would do ANYTHING? Attend Mass at a Catholic Church of your choice this Sunday instead of hanging out at a restaurant on the Sabbath. That would help me tremendously. 



ItalianScallion said:


> I never said that little lady   I've said that I'm very concerned for the Catholics because I've had firsthand experience. I've even defended them in a few posts...



Re-read. I said you heavily implied it, and indeed you have. What are you concerned for if not our salvation? IS, don't forget that I've been going back and forth with you on and off for, what, at least three years now? God has continually led me straight into the arms of His Church, so you just keep praying for me because it's working! What doesn't work is cojoling, whining, and threatening...and pssst here's a hint...that's not going to work for anyone else either.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> *I said Muslims have partial truth,* not fullness of truth. For that matter, it's the same with you with your Sola Scriptura personal interpretation jive.


Sorry if I missed that, but sure I doubt that I did. It sounded like you were ok with their beliefs. 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> I have no problem whatsoever taking what we are unified on and running with it. Can we do that from here on out, IS? Or, will you continually fracture and break the Body of Christ?


:shrug: I've never argued with you about things we agree on...


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> You would do ANYTHING? Attend Mass at a Catholic Church of your choice this Sunday instead of hanging out at a restaurant on the Sabbath. That would help me tremendously.


Sunday is not the Sabbath btw, and how would my attending a Catholic Church bring YOU close to the truth? You and Libby should gang up on me some Sunday and we'll make a day of it there. I might even let you buy me lunch...


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Sorry if I missed that, but sure I doubt that I did. It sounded like you were ok with their beliefs.



That's because that's what you wanted to see and run with, ie a bias.



ItalianScallion said:


> :shrug: I've never argued with you about things we agree on...



How about you stop arguing about things we don't agree on? It hasn't made one whit of difference with anyone anyway, now has it? Instead, focus on what we do agree on. I think God's grace can work through us both, ya know, for those who don't believe.



ItalianScallion said:


> Sunday is not the Sabbath btw, and how would my attending a Catholic Church bring YOU close to the truth? You and Libby should gang up on me some Sunday and we'll make a day of it there. I might even let you buy me lunch...



As you well know, there is vigil Mass on Saturday evenings. 

I've found Truth, but it would still _help me _to see your butt back at Mass or heck at this point any worship service...just once.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> *You especially *...I don't need your education on Islam, as I've studied it.



Great! Then you will know why the Catechism [841] is in great error where it states that Muslims adore the "same Creator" as Christianity.



> I'm not Muslim, I'm a Christian.



Um... Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovahs' Witnesses all claim to be "Christian" also - yet they each believe in "another Jesus" and NOT the Jesus of the New Testament accounts.

In this case, New Testament Christians do not accept nor believe the RCC teaching that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, was "assumed bodily" up to Heaven, where she reigns alongside Jesus as "Queen over all things," and has been given the authority of being "Mediatrix," "Benefactress," "co-Redemptrix," "Helper," "Advocate," hears prayers and is able to help souls get into Heaven, etc.

You have aligned yourself to believe the erroneous extra-Biblical changes that Roman Catholicism made up and which altered the first-century faith and teachings of the New Testament Jesus and His disciples. 



> A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. (1 Corinthians 5:6; Galatians 5:9)



*There Is Only One Truth* (John 14:6)


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> That's because that's what you wanted to see and run with, ie a bias.


MOI? Biased? Oh, say it ain't so...


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> How about you stop arguing about things we don't agree on? It hasn't made one whit of difference with anyone anyway, now has it? Instead, focus on what we do agree on. I think God's grace can work through us both, ya know, for those who don't believe.


As long as they are non-salvation issues, you won't get much flack out of me.
And it does make "one whit of difference" for those who read it. The truth is what is getting told. Besides, I'm sure most folks enjoy the "banter" and can see that I really do luv ya!!


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> As you well know, there is vigil Mass on Saturday evenings.
> I've found Truth, but it would still _help me _to see your butt back at Mass or heck at this point any worship service...just once.


You want to see "my butt" at church?  Is that allowed in church these days?  

What would you seeing me in church "just once" really do? Churches don't like me. I'm too "opinionated" they say...  
I'd rather meet you and the "Libster" for lunch one Sunday.


----------



## hotcoffee

Just stick with the Gospel....

That's all He told us to do.... Go tell everyone the Good News....


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Great! Then you will know why the Catechism [841] is in great error where it states that Muslims adore the "same Creator" as Christianity.



No, I don't know that. In fact, the opposite. 

Here we go again!:


Zguy28 said:


> You know what they say about opinions...








ItalianScallion said:


> What would you seeing me in church "just once" really do?



I truly think grace would abound all the more for you and it would make me happy to see it, that's all. But, no matter; if you don't wanna go, you don't wanna go. I won't hound you about it.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> No, I don't know that. In fact, the opposite.



So, you agree with the RCC that the Islamic God, Al'lah, which was one of 360pagan gods placed in the Ka'aba at Mecca is the same deity that you adore? OK.  

However, if you had really studied Islam, you would know that Al'lah is a different deity than the God of The Holy Bible.  Let's go over the differences again and then if you wish to claim that Al'lah is the same deity you adore, then so be it.

*Yahweh NEVER* commanded His angels to bow down prostrate to Adam.
*Al’lah Did:* Qur’an: (002.034) (007.011) (015.028 - .030)

*Yahweh NEVER* authorized mankind to honor and kiss a stone. (Ka'ba)
*Muhammad Did* and Muslims still do to this day as a prescribed ritual during their pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca.
(Sunan Muslim, Book 007, Number 2912 - 2916)
(Malik’s Muwatta: Book 20, Number 20.34.116)
(Qur’an: 022.027-.030)


*Yahweh NEVER * authorized men to beat their wives.
*Al’lah Did:* Qur’an: (004.032)

*Yahweh NEVER * authorized His prophets to have multiple wives- as many as the prophet desired, nor did Yahweh authorize men to have up to four wives.
*Al’lah Did: * Qur’an: (033.050) (004.003)

*Yahweh NEVER * promised a “paradise” filled with dark-eyed voluptuous women (virgins) as a “reward” to the “righteous.”
*Al’lah Did:* Qur’an: (037.040-.049) (056.035-.036) (078.031-.033)

*Yahweh NEVER* said that women were second-class citizens and comprised the greatest amount of residents in hell.
*Muhammad Did:* (Sahih Bukhari: Vol. 7, Book 62, No. 126)

If Muhammad is a prophet of Al'lah, Muhammad definitely cannot be a prophet of Yahweh. 

*Conclusion:* Al'lah Is Not Yahweh and when Islamic theology says they are the same, (Qur'an 029.046) it is another lie that has been permitted in Islamic theology in order to deceive unsuspecting/uninformed non-Muslims; Christians and Jews. 

It sure appears that the RCC bought into that deception.



> Catholic Catechism
> *841 *The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and *together with us they adore the one, merciful God*, mankind's judge on the last day." 330
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM



Research


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


>



Muslims believe in the God of Abraham as do Jews. What they believe about Him is different than what Christians believe about Him. I never once said that I believed what they do about Him.

Get off your tunnel-vision, self-righteous, bigoted high horse and stab your strawman elsewhere.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Muslims believe in the God of Abraham as do Jews. What they believe about Him is different than what Christians believe about Him. I never once said that I believed what they do about Him.
> 
> Get off your tunnel-vision, self-righteous, bigoted high horse and stab your strawman elsewhere.



After reading the Islamic definition of Al'lah, you still believe that Muslims believe in the same God of Abraham as Jews?


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> After reading the Islamic definition of Al'lah, you still believe that Muslims believe in the same God of Abraham as Jews?



Yes.

Do you suppose the Jews think Christians believe in the same God of Abraham as they do??? They don't think so, but we most certainly do.  

Get over it already.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Yes.
> 
> Do you suppose the Jews think Christians believe in the same God of Abraham as they do??? They don't think so, but we most certainly do.
> 
> Get over it already.



The Orthodox Jews will one day find out that Yeshua HaMashiach was/is indeed their awaited and prophesied Moshiach and that Yahweh is the same God that Messianic Jews and Gentile believers trusted in.

On the other hand, the Muslims will one day find out that the Al'lah they thought to be the true God was in fact a spiritual deception and that the "angelic being" that Muhammad encountered in a cave was NOT sent from Yahweh.

Al'lah is *NOT* Yahweh.


----------



## ItalianScallion

hotcoffee said:


> Just stick with the Gospel....
> That's all He told us to do.... Go tell everyone the Good News....


We're doing just that. What we're also doing in ensuring that the TRUE Gospel is stated here, that's all...


Radiant1 said:


> I truly think grace would abound all the more for you and it would make me happy to see it, that's all. But, no matter; if you don't wanna go, you don't wanna go. I won't hound you about it.


I've gotten tons of grace in the past because I was soo bad... I think I'm very "grace" efficient right now though; something like 60 MPG (Miles per unit of grace). 

I believe it would make YOU happy (and that's what I want to do) but you're not telling my why it would make you happy. It won't do me any good to go to a place where I'd be unhappy so what is the benefit for you?

I had an ex girlfriend who used to relentlessly hound me about not going to church. We've stayed in touch and she would always bring it up when I saw her. One day she came into hard times and stopped going to church for almost 2 years. Now I had 2 options: Sing "I told you sooooo" or empathize with her (knowing full well that she now felt bad for hounding me).   I chose the latter and she never hounded me again about it.


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> Here we go again!:


Please refrain from quoting me unless you are addressing what I wrote. Thanks!


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> The Orthodox Jews will one day find out that Yeshua HaMashiach was/is indeed their awaited and prophesied Moshiach and that Yahweh is the same God that Messianic Jews and Gentile believers trusted in.
> 
> On the other hand, the Muslims will one day find out that the Al'lah they thought to be the true God was in fact a spiritual deception and that the "angelic being" that Muhammad encountered in a cave was NOT sent from Yahweh.
> 
> Al'lah is *NOT* Yahweh.



They are all the same god; just different interpretations and different #1 prophets. Muslims don't believe that Jesus is the son of god but they DO believe he's a very important prophet. 

This is why I never label myself with a particular religion; the three big ones are very similar but there's a sub group in each that refuses to believe there is anything in common. I just don't get it

Can't we all just get along?  I stead of bickering over who's imaginary guy in the sky is real? Don't you think it's interesting that all three religion's holy land is in the same place? Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> They are all the same god; just different interpretations and different #1 prophets. Muslims don't believe that Jesus is the son of god but they DO believe he's a very important prophet.
> 
> This is why I never label myself with a particular religion; the three big ones are very similar but there's a sub group in each that refuses to believe there is anything in common. I just don't get it
> 
> Can't we all just get along?  I stead of bickering over who's imaginary guy in the sky is real? Don't you think it's interesting that all three religion's holy land is in the same place? Coincidence? I think not.



Not Really when you consider that *There Is Only One Truth:*

(Brief overviews)

1: *Orthodox Judaism teaches:* Jesus was a "blasphemer. a false prophet, and the illigitimate son ofa Roman soldier.  Judaic laws call for the killing a blasphemer (because Jesus proclaimed that He was the Son of God and Moshiach) Orthodox Judaism awaits two (2) Moshiachs: ben Yosef and ben David. Jews will reign as a superior people over Gentiles who abided by the Noahide Laws in the "world to come. - according to Orthodox Judaism.

2.) *Islam teaches:* Jesus was only a prophet sent to the Jews.  He was supernaturally born of a virgin but was not the son of God because "Al'lah has no son."  Jesus was really not crucified on Calvary - someone else took His place. Muhammad supersedes Jesus in authority and Muhammad is the "last and final prophet sent to mankind."  Jesus will appear in the last days along with the Islamic Saviour al-Mahdi to rule this world.  Jesus will be called "messiah", be a Muslim and preach from the Qur'an. He will break the symbol of the cross and condemn those who believed He was the Son of God. He will live for forty years and die.  Muhammad will be the first to be "resurrected" and will have the power to allow people into paradise - according to Islamic theology.

3.) *Messianic Judaism/New Testament Christianity teaches:* 

Jesus Christ is whom He proclaimed to be: The awaited Jewish Moshiach; The Son of God, born of a virgin, sinless, manifested as fully man and fully God, Lamb of God whose pure Atoning Blood was shed for the remission of sins to all who believe upon His Name and accept Him as their personal Lord and Saviour. 

Jesus conquered sin and death and we have victory over sin and death through His Victory.  Jesus resurrected from the tomb, was seen by more than 500 witnesses and ascended to Heaven where He is seated next to the Glory of God.  Faith in Jesus makes a person a Child of God through the Born-Again conversion and spiritual regeneration of the individual.

Jesus will defeat the coming rule of antichrist who will have set up a one world/one religion system in this world and caused everyone to make a choice between allegience to his one-world system or Jesus. Those who side with Jesus will be persecuted and beheaded for their faith in Christ.

Upon defeating antichrist in the battle of Armageddon, Jesus will establish God's Peace on Earth for one-thousand years, reigning from Jerusalem. After the thousand years, Satan is loosed for a short time and Jesus will then contend in the final battle by defeating Satan once and for all(Gog and Magog) Then comes the Great White Throne Judgment when a new Heaven and a New earth will be established where only those whose names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be with God forever.

Will your name be found written in the *Lamb's Book of Life*? That's your choice.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Starman3000m

*More RCC extra-Biblical Teachings*

Source: Life on the Rock Program, Sunday, April 17, 2011
EWTN Network 

Speaker: The Very William Casey, CPM
(Superior General of the Fathers of Mercy)

According to Fr. Casey's address to parishioners:



> - "Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit."
> 
> - "...Mary was sinless..."
> 
> - "Do you accept Mary as your mother, as your Queen?"
> 
> -  "As sailors are guided to port, so are Christians guided to Heaven by Mary."
> 
> - Continually praying the Holy Rosary "will lead to world peace."



The Holy Bible does not state that Mary was going to be "assumed" nor that she was born through the "Immaculate Conception" and, thus, "sinless".

According to the Holy Bible,  it is the Holy Spirit who is the Advocate, Helper and the One who guides us to Jesus for our eternal Salvation in the here and now.

The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.



> For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
> 
> But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
> As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)



The written words of the Holy Bible contain all the essential truths that brings a person to the Salvation Grace that God offers through the Atoning Blood of Christ and there is no mention that Mary would ever join Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," Benefactress," co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," etc.

Jesus is the resurrected Saviour of mankind; There Is Proof of that. 
There is no Biblical proof that Mary resurrected and was assumed up to Heaven to be given the title as "Queen over all things". *No Proof - No Truth!*


----------

